Jump to content
Science Forums

New Kid on the Block... 7DSUSYstrings


7DSUSYstrings

Recommended Posts

Here is a nice little gem of a paper, Enjoy. Universo: Dynamical Symmetries, by Nigel Reading

I don't want to misrepresent myself here I do not understand all of this mathematically, but what I can understand resonates with me as an artist/engineer seeking symmetry beauty in form and function.

 

Dynamical Symmetries: Autopoietic Architecture

The Areas of Mathematical Synthesis Between Complexity, (edge of) Chaos Theory , Fractal Geometry and the Golden Mean: leading to an argument for an Autocatalytic Architectural approach based on emergent Self-Organized Criticality

 

 

Complex numbers have a real and imaginary component, so as to express planar co-ordinates, to higher, lower, (or between) dimensions - in a more complete way. (Imaginary numbers when squared, can still yield negatives.) If we then place two basins of attraction (imagine a pendulum and two magnets) in this plane we can perhaps simulate the behaviour of Phi at either the quantum or relativistic scales. We know the Golden Mean acts as a super-attractive orbit between two repelling fixed points, so if we again run iterations of the equation for the circle, with c = -1 (-1 being i, the imaginary number, squared), we produce a Julia Set, a fractal in the complex plane, (named after its originator), for the Golden Mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alexander,

Remember I said "candidate?" I'm sure much math education would be required of the "elect."

 

Here's where i'm at with that, i'm good at conceptualizing something, sometimes really complex. I like learning math that describes the way things work. I hate learning pointless math that tells me absolutely nothing and does not show any useful application. Explain it to you like this, the reason i dropped Diff EQ is because i could not stand having to create models for wolf/hare population and then predicting either one, i can see where such calculations would be helpful, population models, etc, are a big deal for biologists, etc, BUT, i am not a biologist, it is highly probable that i will never become a biologist, or have to create population models for wolves and bunnys (which my math teacher thought were "cute"). I mean i thought she was a great teacher, and for her age, a very bright mathematician, but for myself, i can not cope with pointless calculations like that, my time would be better spent writing code for determining PI to 500,000 places, because to me, Pi is a lot more important then how many bunnies a wolf population will consume in 5 years. Having that said, i have never had less then a B in a physics class, infact my last physics class i got the B, because i used to constantly argue with our teacher, catching him on phrases like: "Then Newton came up with the set of laws, and that's it, they finally and to this day describe exactly how the universe works."

 

Anyways, i'd love to learn some high level math in concepts that appeal to me, but unfortunately nobody teaches in them, so i will have to grunt it out counting sheep and bunnies, to eventually be able to be "in"...

 

btw i say i dropped it, but i didn't miss a class... just didnt get to do homework or study for quizzes and tests, which i think are stupid anyways, way i look at math is, if you know the basics of doing an operation, be that something simple, like multiplication or division, or something more complex and involved, like integration by parts, you can always pick up a book to find a particular rule that "math teachers" make you remember. But then when you use it, you look it up once, you use it, you look it up again, you use it, third time, you just know the rule, and instead of wasting my time with making me remember it for the test, give me a sheet with formulas that are needed, let me figure out how and when to use them in solving more involved equations.

 

I also generally suck at word problems. Gimme an equation, i will solve it, describe the equation in a non realistic problem, and i get completely lost, sometimes because of simple disregard for physics, like a guy hanging off the side of a free standing ladder that is exactly perpendicular to the ground (somehow without falling), and then a tractor pulls the bottom of the ladder, to an angle, while the top slowly comes down at an angle. I mean i am that student from hell, you know, the one at whom the math teachers cringe like "just solve it, dont give me reasons why you did not!", the one that writes "according to the laws of physics, the scenario is not possible, the traktor will have to obtain an immediate acceleration of [math]9.8m/s^2[/math], that means that this lawn mower would have to accelerate 21.9 miles an hour every second, that is a g of lateral force continuously. That means a [email protected] 1/4 mile for the traktor...

Another thing, at 60 degrees, on a 10m ladder, assuming that one could even balance on top of a free standing ladder exactly perpendicular to the ground, and there is no friction, which further complicates the process, the whole operation would have taken approximately 4/10th of a second, which is not realistic for this problem..." for an answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi folks,

 

It's saturday, so my time's a bit more limited.

 

T-Bird,

 

Checked out the article. I'll Gutenberg it sometime this week and give you better input than I could at a glance. From what i can see it aligns very well with my own concept of frames in the universe. If you are not familiar with the term "palimpsest," you may wish to search it's definition in Wiki, per se. This is exactly how such 2space data can be stored that projects holographically into 3space.

 

Alexander,

 

I've always found the "old school" methods are very needed to understand the "new school" methods. You sound very intelligent. You may wish to check out my forum. I'll be starting a series of "bite size" math threads that can teach the subject slowly.

 

You'll also find some inflammatory material in the religious areas. I'm at war with the so-called Christians who teach other believers that the only source of knowledge is the Bible. I make no apologies for this, just bear with me. I may be de-programming a "jonestown" type situation. I'll see what's going on when I get there. I may be setting up a science institute here in this town, in an older church ironically. You know Einstein was a Zionist? He also tended toward pantheism, but declared that he was no atheist.

 

Einstein was the first to express time as "a river." My thoughts are the river has involute or prehaps convolute geometry. In that I lean toward the existence of an interstitial flux.

 

See you guys after the holiday...:)

 

Dr. C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm at war with the so-called Christians who teach other believers that the only source of knowledge is the Bible.

Been there, i don't see the point. I think we should teach science (and when i say we, i mean all the people who teach sciences, not we as in me and you, cuz i'm dumb :) ), like islam, we shouldn't try to convince people that religion is wrong, after all, they are convinced that their religion is right, and it is far easier to convince an elephant that its a fly, then a fly convinced that its an elephant, that it's a fly... People shall come to science, when they are ready, and fortunately i know some people that have come to science after realizing that religion no longer made any sense. BTW don't take my ramble on the assumption that god has a gender as an attack of any kind, i merely wanted to correct your logical position to be more appealing to future readers who may or may not be reading this... I try to read religious manuscripts when i can, theology is a lot more fun to discuss when both of you (being the people that discuss this topic) realize that religion was created as a mean to control people outside of government. So please, don't feel that you have to not offend my religious beliefs.... I don't have them, i respect them, but look at things in a cold-hearted way, and question any and every thing...

 

You know Einstein was a Zionist?

Yeah, people, some more intellectually progressed religious people, mention that quote by Einstein, and claim that since Einstein was religious, there must be god... I generally tell them that he most certainly was religious, however he was neither Christian nor Catholic, he did not believe in Christ (though true Zionists do), thus to them, according to their scriptures, that they should have studied, and obviously did not, he was still an atheist...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This imbalance between unbalanced opposites is where we get creative chaos.

Please don't think i am ignoring you, btw i had to very carefully consider your posts, before posting this :evil:

 

Ok, lets start off with the term "opposites", we have 2 sides of our bodies, but they are not opposite to each other except location-wise, they fulfill different tasks and are controlled by opposing (location-wise) brain sides. I think, and please correct me on this, what you are saying is that the way that organisms evolve, plays a great role in the intelligence they may have, and their creativity somewhat derived from that, so the fact that we evolved almost 2 separate bodies, with 2 sides responsible for totally different things, that is what gives us creativity, and that is how we are different from most other animals...? is that what you were talking about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please don't think i am ignoring you, btw i had to very carefully consider your posts, before posting this :)

 

Ok, lets start off with the term "opposites", we have 2 sides of our bodies, but they are not opposite to each other except location-wise, they fulfill different tasks and are controlled by opposing (location-wise) brain sides. I think, and please correct me on this, what you are saying is that the way that organisms evolve, plays a great role in the intelligence they may have, and their creativity somewhat derived from that, so the fact that we evolved almost 2 separate bodies, with 2 sides responsible for totally different things, that is what gives us creativity, and that is how we are different from most other animals...? is that what you were talking about?

Yes:)

 

Mechanistically the development of a bilateral body plan allows for a complex arrangement of appendages that can control movement. A fish with dual sets of opposing fins swims better than say an eel . Its just a more advanced energetic configuration.

The evolution of a complex brain develops in the same manner. Basic bilateral morphology allows for a geometric resonance between opposing pairs. This architectural framework creates a basic feed back system between the inside structure with environmental information. Each eye sees differing information, this information creates a complex brain to deal with it by unifying the two veiws into one. Just as the two fins need to synchronize their efforts into a direction, the eyes need to see as one. This one is the conscious brain that functions as the mediator, balancing the two complementary poles of information. The oscillations created therein are in a chaotic flux seeking a balance

 

 

This is expressed in the simple geometric symbol of the Vesica.

 

 

Plato also states in Timaeus: “But two things cannot be rightly put together without a third; there must be some bond of union between them. And the fairest bond is that which makes the most complete fusion of itself and the things which it combines; and proportion is best adapted to effect such a union. For whenever in any three numbers, whether cube or square, there is a mean, which is to the last term what the first term is to it; and again, when the mean is to the first term as the last term is to the mean -- then the mean becoming first and last, and the first and last both becoming means, they will all of them of necessity come to be the same, and having become the same with one another will be all one.”

 

 

"Morphology is not only a study of material things and of the forms of material things, but has its dynamical aspect ... in terms of force, of the operations of energy. This is a great theme. Boltzmann, writing in 1886 on the second law of thermodynamics, declared that available energy was the main object at stake in the struggle for existence and the evolution of the world" D'Arcy Thompson, On Growth and Form, 1917

..to (in)form buildings with thematic meaning, they must convey a gestalt, the whole must be more than the sum of the parts, and there must also be an ambiguity and paradox immanent within that gestalt, as a tension. (And quoting Heckscher on composition...) It is the taut composition which contains contrapuntal relationships, equal combinations, inflected fragments, and acknowledged duality's. It is the unity which maintains, but only just maintains, a control over the clashing elements which compose it. Chaos is very near, its nearness, but its avoidance, gives ...force" Robert Venturi, Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture, 1966

 

Chaos and Complexity

 

One of the themes straddling both biological and physical sciences is the quest for a mathematical model of phenomena of emergence (spontaneous creation of order), and in particular adaptation, and a physical justification of their dynamics (which seems to violate physical laws).

 

The physicist Sadi Carnot, one of the founding fathers of Thermodynamics, realized that the statistical behavior of a complex system can be predicted if its parts were all identical and their interactions weak. At the beginning of the century, another French physicist, Henri Poincare`, realizing that the behavior of a complex system can become unpredictable if it consists of few parts that interact strongly, invented "chaos" theory. A system is said to exhibit the property of chaos if a slight change in the initial conditions results in large-scale differences in the result. Later, Bernard Derrida will show that a system goes through a transition from order to chaos if the strength of the interactions among its parts is gradually increased. But then very "disordered" systems spontaneously "crystallize" into a higher degree of order.

First of all, the subject is "complexity", because a system must be complex enough for any property to "emerge" out of it. Complexity can be formally defined as nonlinearity.

 

The world is mostly nonlinear. The science of nonlinear dynamics was originally christened "chaos theory" because from nonlinear equations unpredictable solutions emerge.

 

A very useful abstraction to describe the evolution of a system in time is that of a "phase space". Our ordinary space has only three dimensions (width, height, depth) but in theory we can think of spaces with any number of dimensions. A useful abstraction is that of a space with six dimensions, three of which are the usual spatial dimensions. The other three are the components of velocity along those spatial dimensions. In ordinary 3-dimensional space, a "point" can only represent the position of a system. In 6-dimensional phase space, a point represents both the position and the motion of the system. The evolution of a system is represented by some sort of shape in phase space.

 

The shapes that chaotic systems produce in phase space are called "strange attractors" because the system will tend towards the kinds of state described by the points in the phase space that lie within them.

 

The program then becomes that of applying the theory of nonlinear dynamic systems to Biology.

 

Inevitably, this implies that the processes that govern human development are the same that act on the simplest organisms (and even some nonliving systems). They are processes of emergent order and complexity, of how structure arises from the interaction of many independent units. The same processes recurr at every level, from morphology to behavior.

 

Darwin's vision of natural selection as a creator of order is probably not sufficient to explain all the spontaneous order exhibited by both living and dead matter. At every level of science (including the brain and life) the spontaneous emergence of order, or self-organization of complex systems, is a common theme.

 

Koestler and Salthe have shown how complexity entails hierarchical organization. Von Bertalanffi's general systems theory, Haken's synergetics, and Prigogine's non-equilibrium Thermodynamics belong to the class of mathematical disciplines that are trying to extend Physics to dynamic systems.

 

These theories have in common the fact that they deal with self-organization (how collections of parts can produce structures) and attempt at providing a view of the universe at different levels of organization (from living organisms to physical systems to societies

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...

Hi all,

 

I've been gone from the forum for a while, as you've likely noticed. I've been busy with two new houses I've bought and putting together a nanotech lab with some extras that bolster it, discussing a new metamaterial with another doctor friend of mine and refuting a variety of "MacAdemia" nuts (including some MD's) that are better at plucking a flock than using their heads. I have some concepts in medicine that might help folks with IBS, but also I have a way to stop H1N1 from spreading. (We've had two deaths from it here in Indiana already. The CDC predicts 90,000 more in America next year...:lol:)

 

Science on a budget sucks at times, but it can be done. It just requires a lot of improvising.

 

One thing I've been very busy at is developing a structural theory of time. Somewhere in here I've probably indicated that I'm an opponent of the Big Bang theory for quite a few reasons. One involves that it develops a look like "ring sausage" religion. 9D(T) is mind boggling, but it balances Einstein's gravitational equation where the cosmological constant becomes a problem with the expanding universe.

 

I'll get back in here more often and I want to share some ideas with all of you. Thankyou for all these responses in my absence. It's going to take me a little bit of time to catch up. As of now it's a bit like reading "stereo instructions.":D

 

Back soon...

 

Dr. Charbonneau

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...