What is Symmetry ?

[SteveA]

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

Notice that all the information is stored in a 1 dimensional memory array - it's an address space. Specifically how many "digits" or orthogonal properties you want to use to alter the represented form is unique for you. The information is just a linearly ordered collection - you can fold it however you want. The retina is a surface and just sees surfaces.

[Graybeard]

Ph****k .... i thought I would get my second post in before Speedy Stevie had time to reply .... no such bloody luck


rotflmao ..... greg

[Graybeard]

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.

Steve ... will explain this part tomorrow with a graphic ... much easier ... but gotta go now

cool bananas ... greg

[SteveA]

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

One of my friends wanted to invent a 4-D sound system. String theories are 10 or 11 dimensional and some theories are 26 etc. This doesn't really mean anything.

The photo copier takes a 1 dimensional stream of information and presents it over time as a 2 dimensional surface (finite widths) which are then layered (I'll assume) and these layers are also finite.

There only needs to be a sufficient quantity of information to supply enough linear volume to be mapped into more dimensions. There's really only one infinite dimension and that's time. All the other dimensions are finitely quantizable and fundamentally dimensions of conscious perceptions or qualities of experience - the perceptions map a linear collection of information into a perception of space.

Everything you're saying agrees with my comments.

[austintorn@aol.com]

We know that the retina only sees surfaces—of 3-D objects in cube-land.

[SteveA]

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

I had a longer post but let me simply paraphrase it - yes, we can fit any number of objects, including their dynamics over time in embedded spaces of different dimensionality etc. Basically any storyline can be fit into a single quantity - it depends upon the manner in which that quantity is decoded (which is where this information is split in various ways and assigned to denoting different properties of an experience).

As a quick example of how this can be possible. Imagine encoding a set of numbers as a single number by representing it as binary and then counting the number of 1s separating each 0.

For example, assume for a second that there's only 1 symbol/quanta in existence (except for the empty space/energy/time beyond) and all numbers are described just as a string of these, so for example, the number 5 could be represented as:

5=11111

or

11=11111111111

If we then construct a binary tree to contain these, this can construct a form where the last leaf shows the quantity and the pathway to reach it is a binary number (a summation of powers of 2) and we could have:

5=4+1=101 (binary)
11=8+2+1=1101 (binary)

Now if we count the segments containing 1s we can then see 5 or 101 as a pair of 1s or (1,1) in 2 dimensions and similarly 11 is a group of 2 1s and 1 or (2,1). A binary value like 111011010 would be a "4 dimensional" point at (3,2,1,0).

This of course can be recursive as well and we can embedded spaces within each other. We can also use this to describe sequences of motions over time as well.

The specific manner of interpreted that "quantity of time" depends upon how it is decoded and there's not simply one way of doing this, though if we look at physical systems we have lots of clues as to some of the specific mechanics involved (conservation of information appears to be a big one and a fundamental constant velocity is natural as well).

But anyway, yes it appears we can pack any finite form of interpretation into a single number and represent it in unary representation as just a long line of identical quanta. Real numbers don't really exist as 1-D objects though and what the significant property of extended physical dimensions is, is that time, or the infinite direction is experienced as a property of all of them, but truly there's only 1 logical dimension for time and a second such dimension would have to exist similar to an individual free will relative to that (in other words, the ability to choose between pathways with specific form - the ability to make such a selection is beyond logic, or that 1-D pathway to describe). The 3rd dimension could be similar to a parallel search with different value functions (multiple "wills" following independent pathways), but fundamentally it would appear there can really only be ones own pathway in time and multiplexing across other dimensions arises from perceptual limitations in seeing this - physical memory isn't large enough, though no finite/describable state would appear able to do this, so we're left with an effectively "infinite number of quanta" and because the perception of time is not at this fundamental level, there can also be similarly an unlimited number of "perceptual motions", the restrictions are logical in that actions based upon a context exist within the same space and are constrained by it, though there are informationally creative transformations that can reorder or re-represent, and still retain all the information as well as append new contexts to it and that appears generally the best direction to head.

I once again had to clip a longer post as I know this is already a ton of stuff to consider. No rush ... we've got lots of time

[SteveA]

We know that the retina only sees surfaces—of 3-D objects in cube-land.

The retina sees surfaces. The mind constructs the 3-D cube land. There's no physical sense that actually interacts at a distance. If you move your hand and touch something, the information regarding the motion is feedback within the body and what you touch is just a surface. The eyes see a surface. Hearing is a pair of 1-D amplitudes over time etc.

You could pack it all into a serial bitstream and reconstruct it in whatever context you want. A DVD player reads a binary stream of information - the decoder is where this information is multiplexed to describe different properties like spacial position and qualities of color etc. - those are functions of the body/universe.

It's not that 3-D reality does not exist but simply that it's just one form of representation/interpretation and it is a mental construction and does not specifically exist "out there" in the manner normally believed.

When you touch something are you feeling what your body experiences or the object as it is in some external sense? There's a double standard and flip flopping to always pick the paradoxical view won't resolve it. A unified perspective of things is required to do that and it requires a great level of consistency - we can have one or the other or even both simultaineously but contexts can't be continually swapped.

If we're seeing the external universe as it is, then the body has no influence and doesn't exist. If we're experiencing neural information etc. then we're just seeing the brain. We could even say that we're seeing both the body, brain and universe etc. and that the universe is the same as the body etc., but to say in one case that we're experiencing neural activity and things "out there" are illusion and then swap it and say that something "out there" is actually just brain activity without there being some tangible/verifiable manner to distinguish between these ends up making it just an arbitrary belief system with no evidence to support it and this has caused the mental/physical duality that is recognized by many as simply impossible to resolve - it's a paradox.

[SteveA]

Oh, I forgot to answer one of your question regarding how motion can occur in 2 dimensions, Austin.

Here's what it looks like from 3rd person perspective:



Things don't actually move through each other, but from, for example, a central viewing position these motions are all interleaved together and one dimension is compressed out of the view. This makes the objects appear to interact similar to resonating together, and like harmonics of a note or varieties of electron orbitals in atoms, single objects as collections of objects can appear (with slight shifts in these periods we can generate what appear to be orbitals and ties into ratios, primes, continued fractions and irrational numbers).

For example, this object is a single line segment wrapped upon itself in 3 dimensions using periodic functions that are harmonics/multiples of each other. Though there's only one photon and so this object would appear as a statistical wavefunction. If these were not perfect harmonics, this object would move around and fill a 3 dimensional volume over time.



(Actually the way the beads are shown it would take something closer to 4 dimensional structure to fill this in ... but basically imagine that it's similar to a molecule with molecular bonds, a single chain of identical objects but placed into a space of conscious perceptions - so we see colors and feel textures etc. - physical space is just a subset of perceptions)

[Graybeard]

If we go back to the idea that all unknowns appear identical in that one unknown is indistinguishable from the other, then we have symmetries arising from unknowns

Anyway, I'm rather certain there's a lot to this but it's still hard to map it all out 1 to 1 with experiences and I've been trying to look at what the maximal form of complexity that can arise from such structures is and then hopefully begin with square #1

Steve .... I'm only up to this part.

Lets look at the 'most' symmetrical object we can visualise .... a Sphere. And lets let this sphere equal the Fundamental Substance, or Vacuum, or Void, whatever the primordial Substance was.

We know it displays total symmetry ..... at least we think we know we know.

If this is true .... then an observer from the outside (impossible I know, for a number of reasons) would observe 'nothing'. Why ??

Symmetry (or near symmetry) is inherent in the Arts and Literature, and in all our observations around us .... It makes us feel good and we find it necessary. But in Math it plays a much more important part ... it closely matches the Laws of Classical Math. But in all this it is still an approximation, or heuristic.

But in Quantum Mechanics it has a DEFINITE relationship to the QM Laws of Conservation ... Each QM law of conservation has a definite symmetry attached.

So when we 'observe' the sphere we cannot detect any difference between one point or another, all observations return the same 'value'. There is no 'difference' for the asymmetrical eye to fix on. Our observations 'slide off', recording 'nothing'. In Classical Math we would record that the observations, tho different, detected no change. The 'difference' to this in QM is that the 'observations' were identical. Literally !! It is as tho only the one observation is being taken !

This is exactly what we see when we observe a single particle .... you cannot determine the 'difference' between two particles, and it is not enough to say they they appear the same .... in QM one particle can be interchanged with another and there is NO difference. In fact there is no way to determine one particle from another of its kind ... literally.

So if the sphere is going to eventually form our universe, or form our universe within it, then it is going to have to display asymmetry ..... step by step.

It is the 'step by step' that I am trying to develop a concept for.

NEXT STEP:

When we observe the sphere with a single 'quanta' of asymmetry .... all we would observe is spin, but no polar axis that is unique ... only relative to the observer.?? (I tink)

This spin would be the same for every observer from whatever 'position' the observation was taken from. So in the following graphic all you would observe would be 'clockwise or counter-clockwise' never 'left-right' ??

And when we observe particles in our asymmetrical world all we ever see is the 'spin' from the perpendicular, no matter from what angle we swing our detectors to. Its as tho the liddle particle says 'your never gunna see me from the side'. The reason for this is that our observation interacts with this most basic unit of matter and affects its magnetic moment causing it, in less than 'the blink of an eye', to orient its perpendicular towards us, the observers ( I tink).



So particles display the first 'hallmark' of Asymmetry ??

so far how am I goin, I still got a few more breaks in Symmetry to come ..... rotflmao ???

greg

[WHY 137?]

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

we are the chips off the shoulder?
what if we are the asymmetrical replicating fractals that make up the whole.
we hold the answers to the universe in our crafty hands?




“Left Hand Path = Universal Asymmetry = Right Hand Path”

http://kachina2012.wordpress.com/200...ght-hand-path/

What if the ancients knew all of this?
What symbol is 12,000 years old and comes in two flavors, described as clockwise and counterclockwise?
And the 10,000 BCE date coincides with mythical Atlantis too?

Yes gentlemen I challenge you to name that ONE symbol that has an ASYMMETRICAL version of itself, at least 12,000 years old, found the world over, helping to illustrate how the 'building blocks' on all dimensions share the geometry of asymmetry, building blocks like matter and anti-matter, DNA, amino acids, crystals, and even the heliosphere is asymmetrical.

From everything Macro to everything micro the asymmetrical building block has a role to play.
All of the above can be connected to our asymmetrical L/R hands, or handedness, and to that symbol I ask you to name, that is defined by the fact there are two versions, not one, like most people believe.

ASYMMETRY a most auspicious ‘Theory of Everything’

http://kachina2012.wordpress.com/200...-of-everthing/

namaste