What is Symmetry ?

[SteveA]

Yes,it adds the third dimension of depth, corresponding the the third dimension out there; we can only see into semi-trannsparent 3-D objects.

When one-eye blind, one can approximately deduce the 3rd dimension since more distant object seem smaller, plus, some objects are seen to be behind others.

It's still just 2 dimensional. You're simply projecting mental assumptions as to the depth of objects. For example you could look at a flat sheet with images for both eyes and appear to see "3 dimensional" images, but the information is really just arranged 2 dimensionally.

In the case of transparent objects, once again it's just the mind interpreting the information (and there's a limit to the density of objects we could present in a transparent form) as possessing a depth but we could still map what appears a transparent image in 3 dimensions to just a flat 2-D imagine. This is why physics gets the "holographic" view of things because the "universe" is really just a surface of interaction - we don't truly interact with anything remotely. Depth is a mental feature, just like 4-D spacetime describe knowledge acquired over time regarding the properties of observed in a 3 dimensional space, which are once again derived from 2 dimensional senses (which are *hint hint* fundamentall just a single linear dimension of experiences in time and below that a singular present conscious state).

It's all the same process - taking a 1 dimensional timeline/stream of information over time and interleaving it in various forms (for example, that's basically why string theory is so popular, but they're making the mistake of assuming the strings are separate and that they do not contain discrete elements, as far as I know in which case they'll still need to describe how all these string vibrate synchronously in the same space and then string theory will have a Higgs field too LOL!).

[austintorn@aol.com]

Steve, even if two-eyes blind or closed, one can feel the length, width, and height of an object.

[SteveA]

Steve, even if two-eyes blind or closed, one can feel the length, width, and height of an object.

But those are just surfaces in space. You can't feel the interior without time and the mind involved.

Consider an MRI scan. It shows 2 dimensional slices. It never sees a complete 3 dimensional image until these slices are integrated into an orthogonal direction/dimension:

For example consider a book as layers of 2-D images with the "space" of each image is horizontal and vertical components:



At any time only a 2-D surface is viewed, but the mind can integrate these over time into a depth component and recognize that the book is a collection of these.

Now consider looking at a tree - you only see one side of it an just the surface. You don't see the interior or back side of a tree. You're just seeing a contoured surface in the same manner as colors add cues to determine depth in an image:



That's why physics measures holographics properties because the entire body is just a 2-D sensory surface.

As another example, in Relativity we have information travel at light speed. Every moment one is in the center of a light speed "singularity" of information (a little light "cocoon" if you will) and this spherical surface is what is observed. You can't see faster than light and actually see past this light speed interface unless we use the might to predict events before they occur, in which case we need not wait for light to tell us what will happen next. So seeing in a true 3 dimensional manner would be the equivalent of faster than light properties, but that's intelligence and the mind.

Or as another example of how we can perceive space, imagine an atom in a DNA molecule getting information from atomic bonds on its surface - it's basically again a spherical mapping (within a 3-D context) and the rruface of this is where all the information for experiences is present in the moment.

Same thing with electrical forces and gravity in space, at any moment the vector toward a force is a 2 dimensional angle and over time, via measuring acceleration we can derive the 3rd dimensional component (as a function of time).

I believe that it goes below this though to a 1 dimension perceptual space and below that to a single point/scalar quantity describing experiences, but obviously we need to understand why information appears holographic in physics in order to see how these transformations occur.

[austintorn@aol.com]

MRIs purposely take only a 2-D slice snapshot at a time (of a 3-D object body).

[SteveA]

MRIs purposely take only a 2-D slice snapshot at a time (of a 3-D object body).

In a sense it's really impossible to take a 3-D image ... the interior of an MRI machine is a surface ... yes, I know you'll likely disagree, but the fact is that the body can't really do 3-D without the mind. It doesn't matter how you mix things up, the information isn't there.

Here's a better example of this being measured literally by physics - it's just information. People could call vision 1000 dimensional if someone can differentiate between 1000 colors, but put your hand over your eyes and tell me how much of the 3rd dimension you see. It's just 2-D and so are the senses and basically every form of communication in a 3-D space. This is reflected in Relativity as light cones and even in QM and String Theory:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

This is also what people are referring to when they say there is no "out there" - the mind takes a fundamental quanta and sees it in the context of a much larger space, but actually every experience is a singularity in a mental space, or a number on a convoluted number line (and I've been trying to figure out the natural manner that this folds, which should be able to derive at least the most common statistical forms we witness. Or I guess I should say that there does appear to be a natural manner in which we witness these folds as interleaved in a space, but mapping them to experiences and a physical subset is difficult)

[Graybeard]

Regarding a couple concepts here: connectivity and spin

Steve ... please note .... if asymmetry is quantised ... then there must have been a 'first asymmetry' ? a single attribute ??

Connectivity and Spin are two attributes ??

I believe spin is arises from seeing a finite segment of time. Time continues, but any closed system cycles ... similar to the wheels within wheels ideas etc. If you look at any finite segment of "the clock" the wheels rotate, but experiences continually include larger segments of this that makes the whole not repeat.

Another analogy is of an infinite line - there are no endpoints and it cannot be wrapped into a circle, but if we just view a segment then it can appear similar to ideas of warped spacetime as a circle instead.

So I don't think spin is the quanta,

Your going too fast, lets look at spin as a single attribute. We do not yet have a perpendicular. We cannot see spin from right to left but only clockwise or counter-clockwise ... because the perpendicular (the apparent axis) is always towards us, no matter from what 'apparent' angle we look. .... that is we are always looking down the perpendicular ... no matter that we take up positions at 90 deg to each other we both observe from the perpendicular only..

This is exactly the same for a particle ..... because our observation alters the magnetic moment of the particle. Doesn't this simple explanation show that we are part of the illusion of asymmetry, and that the underlying reality is 'symmetry ??

cool bananas ... greg

[austintorn@aol.com]

There are now 3-D object "photo copiers" / producers and there is also a "4-D" microscope.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Steve, here's my next answer ahead of time:

New scanners at airports can see through our cloths and underwear.


And the next answer ahead:

How do you go over or under anything if you live in Flatland.

[SteveA]

Steve ... please note .... if asymmetry is quantised ... then there must have been a 'first asymmetry' ? a single attribute ??

Yes, that sounds very reasonable and this should fundamentally be a timeless origin.

Connectivity and Spin are two attributes ??

Yes, I was just trying to show a manner in which we could look at directed graphs in a very fundamental form as asymmetries that are similar to quanta (not the origin - which is nothing specific except an observational context - it's connected/present in every other subsequent observation. Everything else is observed except the origin, specific forms only arise in a relative manner from the asymmetry they create in relationship to it - which appears to require directed/hierarchical graphs, outward from an origin. The smallest/initial asymmetries are the lowest forms of perception, though there can be large asymmetries reached via creative motions independent of those smallest/initial symmetries but these require creative insight - you can't use one type of ruler and measure anything outside the space of units it describes - no number of inches will reach a meter distance and you simply have to search for novel ideas/concepts/experiences etc. to recognize these "orthogonal"/prime forms of experience)

Your going too fast, lets look at spin as a single attribute. We do not yet have a perpendicular. We cannot see spin from right to left but only clockwise or counter-clockwise

Thank you much for pointing that out. I hadn't considered this before and it's an interesting idea to look at.

... because the perpendicular (the apparent axis) is always towards us, no matter from what 'apparent' angle we look. .... that is we are always looking down the perpendicular ... no matter that we take up positions at 90 deg to each other we both observe from the perpendicular only..

Ok, if we said that the initial quanta was an observational origin, then this would be similar to that axis perpendicular to the rotation. It would appear in order to avoid symmetry some arbitrary clockwise or counter clockwise rotation should be selected (might be an observer dependent property and something which defines various observational positions in a network).

I believe a next asymmetry could be seen as an acceleration or a reversal of spin, though that's just one possibility.

The sequence position, velocity, acceleration, jerk, (and apparently "snap" is after that) can, I believe be used as a linear sequence of properties that could potentially describe such forms of asymmetry from a rotational context.

This is exactly the same for a particle ..... because our observation alters the magnetic moment of the particle. Doesn't this simple explanation show that we are part of the illusion of asymmetry, and that the underlying reality is 'symmetry ??

cool bananas ... greg

But wouldn't an alteration of the spin of a particle be an asymmetry in time? Yes, fundamentally there would appear to need to be some timeless foundation, but change in time apparents inexplicable from such a view and would appear to have to be ones own action of that observation.

Am I missing something?

For example, if we "saw" a clockwise rotation but this act of observation moved us past it, then it would (looking back) appear as a counterclockwise rotation. The object itself could have remained unchanged but our observation was a motion and altered our state relative to it.

[Graybeard]

Following along from this analogy ..... once you have spin, the next 'quantised' attribute would be to determine a polar axis

Once you have a polar axis you can determine angles.

If you picture a circle drawn on paper and let that resemble a 2-dimensional space ... then any point, placed anywhere within the circle can be located (or described) by drawing an x-y axis thru it and using simple trigonometry you can calculate the lengths of the x-axis and the y-axis from the point to the edge of the circle. Its called a Unit Circle and the Wiki describes it well.

Once you know the lengths of x-axis and y-axis you can locate the point within the quadrant of the circle. Because all 4 quadrants obey the same rule it follows that a point anywhere in 2-dimensional space can be located or derived by the measurement of two lengths. (x,y) Don't worry about the maths, its simple, just take it as a given.

So two measurements of length describe 2-dimensional space.

This is true, but this is not the minimum way to describe 2-dimensional space. 2-dimensional space can be described by a single measurement.

To describe this method just imagine an arbitrary polar axis (imaginary line thru north-south) drawn thru the circle. Now if you draw a line from the centre of the circle (centre of the polar axis) to the point, and you measure the angle between that line and the polar axis you can locate the point.

To sum up you can describe 2-dimensional space with a single measurement. In this case the length of the line from the centre of the circle to the point. The angle does not count as a measurement of distance, it is just an angle and has no length in space.

So 2-dimensional space can be described by a one measurement. It follows that 1-dimensional space can be described by zero measurements. Thats because 1-dimensional space is just a point, not a line, and every location in one dimensional space is in that single point (singularity ??) it has no outer dimensions.

So:

• 1-dimensional space is described by zero length measurements
• 2-dimensional space by 1 length measurement
• 3-dimensional space by 2 length measurements (plus an angle - Polar Sphere)
• 4-dimensional space by 3 measurements
• 5-dimensional space by 4 measurements.

All of these measurements are really just co-ordinates. So to describe any-dimensional space, you just need a number of co-ordinates equal to the (number of dimensions minus 1) plus angles.

These are mathematical dimensions, not 'dimensions' as in common use. There is a difference !

This is not to say that these dimensions have a physical presence. They have an asymmetrical presence and they describe our 3D world.

Just as 1 measurement or 2 measurements can be used to describe 2-dimensional space. So can multiple measurements be used to describe 3-dimensional space, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc. We still just live in 3-dimensional.

At zero time or Planck time ... the smallest observable moment of time, and at a time before which Science cannot describe the Universe ... and the time at which Gravity separated from the ElectroNuclear Force ... Spin bacame apparent.

10^-43 seconds later the Strong Nuclear Force separates from the ElectroNuclear Force.

One pico-second later the Weak Force separated from the ElectroMagnetic Force giving Spin a Polar Axis.

As described in the Unit circle above from there its easy to our 3Dimensional world.

This is just brainstorming a concept for Inflation theory which already has the Maths .... but i need a concept.



cool bananas ... greg