What is Symmetry ?

[Graybeard]

Q: What are the features of a Jivanmukta or a Jnani or a Yogi?

U.G.: I wish I knew. If a Jivanmukta is sitting right in front of you, you will never know [that he is one].

You have no way of knowing whether a man is a Jivanmukta. You have a definition, a behavior pattern. If he fits into that framework, you call him a Jivanmukta. If there is anyone like that, he will never know that he is a self-realized man or a Jivanmukta.

You have been told by somebody that I am a Jivanmukta. I may be a phony, a clever chap. I have picked up the art of elocution and all that. I have travelled around the world. Any actor could do that. How would you know?

“Chandrasekhar, please come here,” called U.G. leaning against the parapet wall on the terrace. I approached him quickly wondering what he might show me. U.G.’s attention was on the road. The branches of Valentine’s tree spread widely above us like an open umbrella. “Can you see the space between those branches and the vehicles passing on the road?” asked U.G

“Yes, why not? No matter how bent the branches are, the eyes can see the space between them and the road behind them,” I replied.

“I cannot. All that seems like a two dimensional picture to me. My eyes can see everything in front, one thing after another, but they cannot see the space among them. There are no measurements such as length and breadth, let alone depth. I maintain that the physical eye cannot see the third dimension. Our minds interpret what we see as the third dimension, but the eyes don’t tell us that there is space. When the present-day scientists talk about the fourth dimension on top of the three dimensions, I feel like breaking their teeth. Where is that fourth dimension? I say that even the third dimension is a lie.

If Einstein were here right now, I could shut him up in one minute,” U.G. said.

With that my mouth closed shut.

Asymmetry is quantifiable .... it comes in quanta.

cool bananas ... greg

[SteveA]

Asymmetry is quantifiable .... it comes in quanta.

cool bananas ... greg

I agree very much. Asymmetries are the concrete reality. All unknowns appear identical - one unknown can be the same as any number. Symmetries represent potentials waiting to be "collapsed"/selected etc.

And even the second dimension is sort of a lie , then again stopping at 4 or 10 or 11 is arbitrary as well. The most significant feature of the 3rd dimension appears to be that it allows bidirectional binary communication + time to exist and is sort of the minimum "protocol" required to have a growing communication network.

Another thing I believe is true is that asymmetries are arbitrary in their perceived form and can be transformed into many representations. All specific things are actually unique and effectively asymmetrical - that's not known/seen/understood/perceived complete and so things appear equal, symmetrical or identical etc. and everything that is unknown/unperceived/not understood etc. all appear identical ... as nothing (specific - until it becomes known and takes a specific form and is seen as an asymmetric or as a mathematical analogy, a variable represents all numbers symmetrically. When it's replaced with a specific number it becomes asymmetrical and can be a "real" object).

There's an intermediate form of this though that appears to possibly be the minimum selective influence and that is a removal of possibilities - for example, if we say that x != 5 well there are still an infinite number of things that x can still be. Physically this can appear similar to a wavefunction where nulls in the probability distibution are effectively what determine that the wavefunction exists (a wavefunction equally dispersed across all of space would not be seen as a wavefunction by as a formless "random" influence without correlation to anything within space)

All things are unique and the fundamental quanta is just A!=B. It's a growing network of these that gives rise to time - where they come from appears unknown - why they're placed in specific ways can only be experienced as creativity and if you try to describe this, it's too late - the dots are already connected and you can't show that process. For example, how can someone show on this forum the thoughts behind a post here? That's a component of experience that can't be seen here. The same is true for a truly creative/energetic source to the universe it's equally everywhere and nowhere specific and if it influences thought itself then it would appear to basically just have to oneself ... either that or we're just puppets, but I don't think that's possible because there could exist any number of such "puppets" yet there's only one that happens to be oneself and it appears this is a property of time and creativity - if you have no selection to make or nothing to add to something etc., then there's nothing that requires/keeps you there - something is only present wherever/whenever/whatever/however etc. it's influencing things, though current influences and current knowledge need not necessarily be the same thing (though they can potentially be depending upon the times at which something was known and a decision to act relative to it occured - which may not be the same time that the influence of that action was experienced - for example, one can decide to become a doctor and work toward that, but that does not necessarily mean that that decision and subsequent actions necessarily immediately resulted in the experience of being a doctor).

I better stop there as I can definitely ramble given half an opportunity (as you already know, Greg ).

[leskey]

Logic is 'slice and dice.'

Light 'floats our boat.' It's a 'sea' of fundamental impetus/momentum...it's everywhere...it can be quanta-fied.

A slice or segment of a vector is what logic calls quanta.

[Graybeard]

A slice or segment of a vector is what logic calls quanta.

Then, in that case, there must be a 'smallest amount' .... an amount which you cannot penetrate any further into ... the elemental amount of Asymmetry ?

What is it ...... ??

cool bananas ... greg

[SteveA]

Then, in that case, there must be a 'smallest amount' .... an amount which you cannot penetrate any further into ... the elemental amount of Asymmetry ?

What is it ...... ??

cool bananas ... greg

Well in geometry it could be a point.

I've been tempted to think a good description is a vector or ray (though it could depend upon the context):



Though in other ways we could see this as the origin of a space (depending upon the properties of the "point" - without an external space, the orientation of the ray would have to be something internal to the point or a general "outward"/else/other/beyond direction).

In conscious/mental terms it could be similar to the continued sense of self or awareness.

In terms of quantities, the indivisible would appear to naturally be 1 (0 is more representative of a subtraction or linear difference between equal components such as 1-1=0, multiplication by zero is a misnoemer IMO and a mistake in mathematical definitions - it's just for perceptual approximations)

In other aspects we could have a void (which within specific contexts could appear as a pure energy) as being things that are not divisible into components.

It's hard to say specifically what a quanta is, though the actual fundamental quanta we use should be represented in all aspects of experience and in a sense we could not see how it was not present - we might not all overlap entirely but we've got to overlap at at least one point (and it would appear that everything that could ever matter or be of significance in any sense has possess at least one property in common with oneself - anything else would be like some forever disconnected and unrelated existence).

[Graybeard]

Well in geometry it could be a point.

I've been tempted to think a good description is a vector or ray (though it could depend upon the context):

For once I understand you clearly .... lol

My thoughts are along the following.

Lets 'presume' before the 'creation' of the Universe, that the FS or Vacuum or Void etc, was in a state of perfect symmetry. And to make it easy, cause I'm not real bright, lets picture it as a 3D sphere.

What properties or attributes can we define for that sphere ... remembering it is totally symmetrical. My suggestion is that we cannot define any .... so what would be the 'first' quantified break in symmetry .... (at this point we would be able to define one attribute only) ??

cool bananas ... greg

[SteveA]

For once I understand you clearly .... lol

My thoughts are along the following.

Lets 'presume' before the 'creation' of the Universe, that the FS or Vacuum or Void etc, was in a state of perfect symmetry. And to make it easy, cause I'm not real bright, lets picture it as a 3D sphere.

There's a problem (as it appears you see also) with the sphere because it's symmetrical - it represents an infinite potential and wouldn't be an objective thing except as abstract possibilities (a sphere requires a very large number of quanta to approximate - in a sense, a sphere already requires an infinite number of quanta, though this can be a nested/dependent infinite constructed as a subset in time. The same thing goes for people that want both a continuously subdivisible space (one infinite direction) and an infinitely extensible space (a second infinite direction) or when someone uses fluid/curved etc. terms as these all imply more information is required to define them and they would be collections of quanta - we've fundamentally just got finite pieces of information per unit of time and time can be the infinite that provides all these and connects them together into a single space, but without that singular connection for infinity all these vague terms fall apart - even the idea of continuous rotations requires multiple discrete states to construct - but we can instead insert points/quanta both between and beyond other points to construct both microscopic as well as macroscopic scales, and interleave them as growing quantities for rotations etc. but it's fundamentally just a single time line of quanta interleaved in various contexts and the largest "dimension" is time - that appears to be the only logically consistent way to do it - think of a program or algorithm in which only one thing/point/connection can be (created/added) at a time and I say added because if we have something go backwards we lose information as to how it got to the point where it went backwards from and that causes the equivalent of an undefined or infinite loop).

What properties or attributes can we define for that sphere ... remembering it is totally symmetrical. My suggestion is that we cannot define any .... so what would be the 'first' quantified break in symmetry .... (at this point we would be able to define one attribute only) ??

cool bananas ... greg

Yes, I agree - we need a direction. The first "quanta" from a point, if it was contained within the contexts of a sphere would just be a splitting of it into interior and exterior, but in many ways the sphere is already the first split of a space containing it - the sphere has an interior "quanta" and exterior "quanta" (if we considered neither volume to be subdivisible).

But these geometric objects are more complex than the single point and a second "point" though attached to the first as a ray/vector pointing toward it (we should keep the asymmetry of time as information available - if we remove the direction we get back to conventional physics where things are just treated as identical units that can be counted and reordering them has no influence - there's potentially a very very large amount of information that's being overlooked when we consider the specific sequences of events).

(I know you said not to ramble too much, but it's just one of those things I have a hard time resisting LOL)

[Graybeard]

There's a problem (as it appears you see also) with the sphere because it's symmetrical - it represents an infinite potential and wouldn't be an objective thing except as abstract possibilities (a sphere requires a very large number of quanta to approximate - in a sense, a sphere already requires an infinite number of quanta, though this can be a nested/dependent infinite constructed as a subset in time.

Don't get too hung up on the sphere ... even a sphere is not 'totally' symmetrical, but close enough to serve as a concept.

Yes, I agree - we need a direction.

Yes .... I agree with you ..... I thought you had it when you said a line or ray. But in my opinion, the first break could not be a line or ray or axis ... because that would be two attributes ??

I would think it would be 'spin'. I think the first break in total symmetry was 'spin' .. the first asymmetry. But spin without a defined axis. I see a defined axis as the second break in symmetry. Remember these are quanta breaks, no smaller or 'part' breaks allowed.

I know I am just on a crazy brainstormin exercise here ... lol

greg

[leskey]

Then, in that case, there must be a 'smallest amount' .... an amount which you cannot penetrate any further into ... the elemental amount of Asymmetry ?

What is it ...... ??

cool bananas ... greg

The "smallest amount" is determined by the perspective of the observer/measurement: the 'slice' through the vector in the orthogonal plane. The only "property" necessary would be perpetual or self-perpetuating.

Also, wouldn't ANY break in symmetry be unbalancing and therefore result in "spin'?

[Graybeard]

The "smallest amount" is determined by the perspective of the observer/measurement: the 'slice' through the vector in the orthogonal plane. The only "property" necessary would be perpetual or self-perpetuating.

Don't know what this means ?? I would think the smallest amount would be the the Planck length in the Planck time.

Also, wouldn't ANY break in symmetry be unbalancing and therefore result in "spin'?

Yessssssssssss ...... Thats what I think too ...... leaving aside what caused the imbalance ...... the result would appear as 'spin'

cool bananas ... greg