Category: Science, Physics, and Philosophy of Science

SET MATH, OPERATIONS, AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

—“I suspect because in set theory and calculus infinities are the bleeding edge of the discipline, in the same way that paradoxes are the bleeding edge of logics and, to put it more operationally, black holes are the bleeding edge of astrophysics. That makes them the more interesting structures of analysis for participants. It’s an artifact of human psychology and its natural salience ranking.”–Duke Newcomb

Sure. They’re the bleeding edges in post sense-perception phenomenon, and a misapplication of that method of investigation within sense- perception-phenomenon. 😉 Just as logic is only falsificationary within simple verbal and conceptual terms, and operations within simple actable terms, and empiricism within post-actionable terms, so what you’re really saying is the bleeding edge of the application of mathematical physics to questions that re not solvable with mathematical physics. 😉 It’s how we claim something is a science via positiva. Except they have it backwards. testimony is the top of the epistemological pyramid and everything else – every other system of calculation no matter how we perform it before reducing it to subjectively testiable differences in constant relations. For example, as far as I know the reason we’re blocked at the quantum level with particle-wave duality is because we haven’t an operational geometric model for the representation of front of the wave (particle location) in some underlying geometric form. So, for example, We did get Minsky to make the point that operational logic was a new method of thought; we got chomsky to sort of make the loose expression of continuous recursive disambiguation – I’m not really sure (I think not) that he understood or understand the implications – that all speech is falsificationary (disambiguation: carving away stone of ambiguity, not building with clay of meaning). And we did get Mandelbrot to demonstrate it with post-human-computability; And we did get Wolfram out there trying (poorly) to achieve it in mathematics, and biologists trying to achieve it in protein folding. But I have yet to see anyone trying use operations, and geometry, to explain how tetrahedrons (the smallest possible three dimensional set of fields) can rearrange in some combination that produces charged strings of tetrahedrons in some combination, that would in fact explain the wave particle duality. I have on the other hand seen people discuss it but they’re trying mathematically instead of learning from Turing, Mandelbrot, and Wolfrom that ‘averages’ produce in formula do not produce forking states other than ‘string’s (waves of changes in state through a network of tetrahedrons) that in turn would produce both waves and momentary particles. Now this is rather obvious to me as an operationalist, but every time you get someone talking about quantum mechanics they’re using averages which cannot express causes only consequences. String theory does not require 11 dimensions, it requires some underlying structure in which forces accumulate into 11 axis of causation (positive or negative charge or pressure) dependent upon the possible means of organizing a network of three dimensionally constrained charges. Lisi’s work is interesting because he’s identified the problem of the charges missing, but it might simply be that those combinations are’t possible to construct with available organizations of the underlying tetrahedrons (or some other triangular shape, even if they are circular charges that can only be arranged in triangular relations etc. Circles (spheres) of charges also solve the problem of three dimensions, the tetrahedral (or hexagonal or whatever) organization of the charges may only be an effect of the directions of spin. Whatever the underlying geometry is we already know it’s set expression (quantum fields) but we do not know its existential expression – geometry and operations possible on geometry. And as far as I know we can’t possibly measure such a thing so the only way of coming up with it is finding some set of geometric relations that through a limited grammar of possible organization, either temporary or consistent, produce what we call strings, which constitute the charged (altered) state of the underlying geometry, which we observe as a probability distribution in quantum mechanics, and which as a consequence of our ignorance is preventing us from explaining the relationship between quantum mechanics and general relativity – I suspect, because, we are looking for particles or fields that produce gravity when instead, it’s just distortion of the underlying geometry, in which there is no evidentiary change expressed in detectable particles because all gravity is the negative expression of charges that distort the underlying geometry. ANd it is very hard to think like this if you have had your entire cognitive structure trained to think of sets (verbal averages), and mathematics (verbal averages) rather than geometry(reality).

SET MATH, OPERATIONS, AND QUANTUM MECHANICS

—“I suspect because in set theory and calculus infinities are the bleeding edge of the discipline, in the same way that paradoxes are the bleeding edge of logics and, to put it more operationally, black holes are the bleeding edge of astrophysics. That makes them the more interesting structures of analysis for participants. It’s an artifact of human psychology and its natural salience ranking.”–Duke Newcomb

Sure. They’re the bleeding edges in post sense-perception phenomenon, and a misapplication of that method of investigation within sense- perception-phenomenon. 😉 Just as logic is only falsificationary within simple verbal and conceptual terms, and operations within simple actable terms, and empiricism within post-actionable terms, so what you’re really saying is the bleeding edge of the application of mathematical physics to questions that re not solvable with mathematical physics. 😉 It’s how we claim something is a science via positiva. Except they have it backwards. testimony is the top of the epistemological pyramid and everything else – every other system of calculation no matter how we perform it before reducing it to subjectively testiable differences in constant relations. For example, as far as I know the reason we’re blocked at the quantum level with particle-wave duality is because we haven’t an operational geometric model for the representation of front of the wave (particle location) in some underlying geometric form. So, for example, We did get Minsky to make the point that operational logic was a new method of thought; we got chomsky to sort of make the loose expression of continuous recursive disambiguation – I’m not really sure (I think not) that he understood or understand the implications – that all speech is falsificationary (disambiguation: carving away stone of ambiguity, not building with clay of meaning). And we did get Mandelbrot to demonstrate it with post-human-computability; And we did get Wolfram out there trying (poorly) to achieve it in mathematics, and biologists trying to achieve it in protein folding. But I have yet to see anyone trying use operations, and geometry, to explain how tetrahedrons (the smallest possible three dimensional set of fields) can rearrange in some combination that produces charged strings of tetrahedrons in some combination, that would in fact explain the wave particle duality. I have on the other hand seen people discuss it but they’re trying mathematically instead of learning from Turing, Mandelbrot, and Wolfrom that ‘averages’ produce in formula do not produce forking states other than ‘string’s (waves of changes in state through a network of tetrahedrons) that in turn would produce both waves and momentary particles. Now this is rather obvious to me as an operationalist, but every time you get someone talking about quantum mechanics they’re using averages which cannot express causes only consequences. String theory does not require 11 dimensions, it requires some underlying structure in which forces accumulate into 11 axis of causation (positive or negative charge or pressure) dependent upon the possible means of organizing a network of three dimensionally constrained charges. Lisi’s work is interesting because he’s identified the problem of the charges missing, but it might simply be that those combinations are’t possible to construct with available organizations of the underlying tetrahedrons (or some other triangular shape, even if they are circular charges that can only be arranged in triangular relations etc. Circles (spheres) of charges also solve the problem of three dimensions, the tetrahedral (or hexagonal or whatever) organization of the charges may only be an effect of the directions of spin. Whatever the underlying geometry is we already know it’s set expression (quantum fields) but we do not know its existential expression – geometry and operations possible on geometry. And as far as I know we can’t possibly measure such a thing so the only way of coming up with it is finding some set of geometric relations that through a limited grammar of possible organization, either temporary or consistent, produce what we call strings, which constitute the charged (altered) state of the underlying geometry, which we observe as a probability distribution in quantum mechanics, and which as a consequence of our ignorance is preventing us from explaining the relationship between quantum mechanics and general relativity – I suspect, because, we are looking for particles or fields that produce gravity when instead, it’s just distortion of the underlying geometry, in which there is no evidentiary change expressed in detectable particles because all gravity is the negative expression of charges that distort the underlying geometry. ANd it is very hard to think like this if you have had your entire cognitive structure trained to think of sets (verbal averages), and mathematics (verbal averages) rather than geometry(reality).