Dimensional Discourse

You substantively and goodly said, "My understanding is that superstrings are only one dimensional anyway. So how does this actually constitute "extra" dimensions? Even if we allow the "clockwise/anti-clockwise" axis to count as a dimension, doesn't that just give us a two dimensional object in three dimensional space?"I guess you are giving me reason to FINALLY get around to reading RUCKER (I have been tempted many a time but never got around to reading the likes of
http://www.jimloy.com/books/4d0.htm
etc).I DO see why you indicate that any group of 1-D strings would not be "extra" dimensionally but indeed I might be able to suggest how in the "nothing but BM" thread is related to YOUR visualization issue. I will do some personal reading on this as you seem to be the only one here really interested in "panning" down my posts. You might be absolutely correct about there being nothing 'extra' dimensionally here but I am not certain that an old idea I had of relating the Butterfly Catastrophe to statistics of normal distributions might (not) allow me to present or demonstrate what it is you were asking about. ??
Pages perso Orange - Domaine obsolte
Let me know this. I will try.Here are some of the problems/issues/difficulties I am noticing in linking up your visualizability and my vision.John Archibald Wheeler in "Geometrodynamics" wrote page 129 "VII - The Central Position of the Neutrino in Elementary Particle Physics. In conclusion, the vision of RIEMANN, CLIFFORD and EINSTEIN, of a purely geometrical basis for physics, today has come to a higher state of development, and offers richer prospects - and presents deeper problems - than ever before. The quantum...between this virutal foam-like structure...seems no escape from indentifying these wormholes with <>" but the electrons I will be discussing for any attempt to build a read all about it cantor dimension WILL be in this difference of dressed vs undressed but it will be difficult to keep clear, in English, what the electron (sub)population actualy is that nonethemore would remand a macrothermodynamic equilibrium no matter the foam etc.

​

In other words, what Russell named 'co-superficial' WILL divide this sample of electrons that I discriminate across isothermals from what ON THE AVERAGE Gladyshev works with. (Russell THE ANALYSIS OF MATTER Space-Time Order p 311 "The further development of our geometry, so as to include surfaces, volumes, and four-dimensional regions, obviously presents no difficulty in prinicple, and I do not propose to enlarge upon it. I will merely observe that it is possible to extend the method by which we have defined points and lines so as to obtain something wihch we may call surfaces and regions, though not quite in the usual sense. Probably various ways of doing this are possible; the one I suggest is..") I have many pages of notes on using Cantors' ascending Ps that occur mathematically before he developed ordertypes in terms of READINGS OF CROIZAT (panbiogeography) (and I started to explain this, to my self (in notes) in terms of Pascal's position on propositions) but it will not be easy for me to directly relate what I DID THINK as a surface to a region that might be 4-D. I am interested in black body radiation, baraminic discontinuity and Einstein's attempts to use parralel math but it has always been easier for me to NOT THINK about Bohr and side with Einstein as to the philosophical position of clock without a rod or a rod without Poincare against Cantor etc etc...I regress to BM speak...

​

Nonetheless, I FULLY EXPECT, Einstein, "The meaning of Relativity" p 75 " The Riemann Tensor. If we have give a curve extending from the point P to the point G of the continuum, then a vector...otherwise, the result depends on the path of the displacement "
to remand equally for biology and physics. And just now I am trying out Russell's idea on intersection with Georgi's notion of cross time and space hierarhies phenomenologically. I have not tried to think of Popper's 3rd world but I dont suspect this is impossible "in the region" as word without denotation. I have to see if my own connotation can be ORDINaTED with your visualizability! I expect higher order vertex sets of minimal spanning trees can provide the coverage of the path but I have not attempted the maths on it. The difficulty for me, is that chance dispersal OR vicariance are not categorically rejected nor is there an explict null hypothesis currently under test. This of course does not stop one from forming notions a la Rucker but I will first be, without the fluff, noting how differently CODED 1-D symmetries might classify mutations into new cateogorizations that if indeed related to INDPENDENT magnetic properties might enable the direct use of the physical probabilites IN THE algebra of Hardy Weinberg PER EQUILIBRIUM. But whether or not catastrophe theory needs be added to the descriptive tool kit I did not, as of yet, know. The history of biology indicates to me that it does. It may even be that c/e dependent so much on joint historical disputes IS NOT the place to discuss it but that can not be determined without the virture you thought Rhain to have provisioned.

​

This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-22-2004 10:31 AM

I am just about finished with a response that details what conditions I need to be able to DEDUCE an extra dimension and in the process I think I have really managed to understand ALL of Georgi Gladyshev's point(s) (except how much Russian Culture itself assisted him in the formulation etc)however to be fair I still need to look into possibly one slip up on my part which did bear on your query Tony.I state this here more for my own benefit than yours but we might end up back here after I go on. Georgi had said (I will do all the reference stuff if we HAVE to come back to this tissue) "Many investigators, as the reader knows for sure, also identify the classical Clausius Gibbs entropy and Prigogine entropy S' despite the latter has no relation to the second law of thermodyanmics.^1,4,15"&"After the author of this paper had forumulated the law of temporal hierarchies (he was first aware of its existence in 1976-77^26), it became obvious that the methods developed by Langrange,Gibbs, and ..."Following the guiding principles of Lagrange..."The only way I can be WRONG physically, up to now, and beyond this post, is ONLY (in so far as I am aware of my own cognitive abilities (which is all any one has ever asked net wise as far as I know) if proper use of Langragians dimiss errors of the former quoted kind. It is not obvious to me that fractal TO 4D must fit within this physicality but as I have still to look into this minutae it is possible that conditioning the deductive environment as I will will still miss the sip you or I or someone else might later find in this LATTER"". (t is not d).Hopefully if we come back to this I will remember all or enough of the analogies that are presently "coming to mind" if needed.

There is indeed a lost thought or two in here. I have an off line response written but not typed up just yet that specifies what I need programatically to VISUALIZE 4D. No, I have not done this yet. It is possible that we are mistaking such visuals with with temporal assymetries spatialized. Regardless one needs OBJECTS yes. But no I have not rotated "em". You see if it TIME that is NOT SPLIT it might be space here and not the maths of "4d". The VRML program I am contemplating will use the ability to change VIEWS (relative place of USER with respect to the 3D object) to gain this dimension relative scaling levels of organization. There does seem to be somepossiblity if dataformnormalization was to exclude bifurcations numerically that one might find such rotations you proposed as normal intutions but rotating an OOP object method programmatically need not be a natural 4D turn.I think such twists might exist even if one did not have to have it perverted provided that temperature CREATES the assymetry but this would not be sensible, being understandable nontheless. A VRML simulation of the kinetic theory of gases might help. The physical nexus may be POTENTIAL CHANGES CURRENT WITH virial on phase transitions related to gas exchange during life. If so I would suspect any exisiting claim for such abilities to review 4D motion without necessary connections to living objects. I can be wrong. It could also be that the physics thus assertable speaks to preventable reductionism however.I have been thinking I wouldn't post this long response to you directly but rather contain it in a web site of my own trappings still to be decided if it is underconstruction or not.I can abbreviate the conditioning if you like.

Yes the object fasinates me too. I sometimes cant distinguish the word translated in Kant's Critique of Reason, Bertrand Russel's use of the word "Chain" (in relation to Dedekind), a liberal interpreatation of Wilson's biological diversifiability, OOP logic, and my mouse. I had hoped my first love would have reciprocated so I am back to the drawing booorred again. Yes, I havent rotated them but I am begiNing to think why Einstein might have not finished his work. It was not because he couldnt park a car!The first thing it to be clear what "straight lines" one uses are but with an OBJECT they need not be straight and that gets one into mental space very quickly.

Oh,
for me it's because I still refuse to accept Necker Cubism as discussed between Dawkins and Gould and thus it causes me to illegitamately psychologically block such geometric rearrangements.Yes, Einstein was on about being in the center of a circle or not but the reason I suspected his work on might not be able to be finished was because I am coming to the realization that with the addition of the logical manipulations computers afford man the FORMULAIC inuitionn that Einstein exemplified more than any other mortal might be being CONTINUOUSLY being replaced by human centered computer assisted computations. It would have to be continously, not discontinously happnening for me to be correct on that, else one need merely take the position of a Wolfram or a Feynman or some linear business extrapolation economically of a future in quantum computers.I have this thought, ONE out of rejecting Einstein's reasons for ejecting Kant and TWO because I can ONLY set up the conditions of your 4D reality by a haptic interface with a VRML browser able to turn a macrothermodynmaic equilibrium (that WOULD contain the FORMULAIC approach interms of recursiveness programmatically no matter how the Einstein like Intuition thinged itself).Thinking in terms of rotation is not necessary if one THOUGHT in terms of Poincare RETURN POINTS
http://www.math.montana.edu/~pernarow/M455/ComputerLab2.html
but
http://faculty.stritch.edu/...olds/mt322_02/mt322sgExam.html
if?
Class OdesReturnMap
??
group rotations WERE added to strech of some distance one might coherently build OUT OF 3D by linking database tables a representation of 4D that I would think could be graphically replayed in virtual reality as projection from a calculated 4D, could it not?It always seems "intuitive" with me that 5 axes might be condtionally existant in higher order catastrophe sets or at least this is the respect and credit I give a mind like Rene Thom if it came to the senses actually used to achieve these results. Rotation would have meaning interms of crossing control parameter space on this noddle of lack of coherence that is not incoherent nonetheless.Your not "talking" to yourself. That was the GDong show preempted by you.

I dont know if this helps you out in understanding Sagan.I was very impressed as a high school teenage SEEING Sagan on TV and especially I was impressed with this show on the PERIODIC TABLE of ELEMENTS. When this was displayed on the TV SCREEN, I got the feeling I WAS SEEING SOMETHING, that did not exist IN MY HOUSE IN NJ. I had supposed at that time that this PROJECTION (there is nothing topologically exiticing about about a chess board) was INFORMING me about chemical elements scientists at CORNELL and elsewhere KNEW about THAT I, bsm, DID NOT. Of couse I was only a teenageer at that time and my HOUSE, there in NJ, today; seems smaller to my older being as it is to-day.I really DONT KNOW what Carl, could have meant in the quote,

quote:

---

...It could also turn us inside out. There are several ways in which we can be turned inside out: the least pleasant would result in our viscera and internal organs being on the outside and the entire Cosmos - glowing intergalactic gas, galaxies, planets, everything - on the inside. I am not sure I like the idea.

---

as I eventually did not distinguish ANYTHING ABOUT SAGAN as other than the Satalites ON TOP of the Space Science Building BECAUSE in the Building NEXT is the ADWHITE HOUSE with THE BIG RED BARN , catycorner (where one eats lunch)&In the WhiteHouse I sat a few chairs away from Sagan duing a Science and Humanities Seminar, only TO FIND Sagan getting quite expressive about Humanists who were passing over the notion of molecules in reality rather quickly. It might have been in a talk about Freud. I can't really remember that actually context very well. But on seeing how upset Sagan was getting it deflated ANY PROJECTION I might have psychollogical transferred from the TV show and ALL I WAS LEFT to image was the intro and exit to the showsCOSMOS , traveling through a dark space OR EATING LUNCH at the barn. Subsequently I produced some TV shows for a local Time-Warner and THEN ALSO UNDERSTOOD that I DID HAVE THE WRONG IDEA ABOUT TV STARTDOme so for me, the only way HE MIGHT have imagined such a dissectable inversion is if IN ADDITION TO ALL this above, Carl TOOK to heart in these natural kinds of molecules the symbiosis theory"" and somehow projected his own human relationship within THE THOUGHT. What Rhain said was independent of any such anthropmorphizing or simple science you already understand. In order for Sagan to REALY GET his intuition one would need to refract to reflection symbiotically PAST EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE. I see not way to futurize his idea in any way. It is of couse just as easy to believe aliens will force new ideas on us as it is to idolize GOD regardless of the biochemistry of Freudian projectionisms for any "nervous" system, or emotive response to a TVshow:: lecturesidelighting or descriptive topology.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-08-2004 12:23 PM

quote:

---

Are you saying that you (Brad McFall) attended a Science and Humanities Seminar at the White House which was also attended by Carl Sagan? Carl Sagan, the creator of Cosmos? Carl Sagan, the author of Contact?

---

Yes, I guess it might have been in 1984 or 5. He sat behind me, a row or two back, in the Cornell Andrew Dickson White HOUSE next to the Space Science Building and in front of the Big Red Barn on the Cornell Campus. There was a small circle of a handful of scientists at that time which included Carl as a principal which was the brains"" behind CU-earlier. There was quite an outpouring in the town of Ithaca after he died. SpaceSciences is to the RIGHT of the second picture below during scroll.
Page not found | The College of Arts & Sciences
His house/residence was on the edge of a gorge near campus, that required an elevator to get DOWN into it.
The seminar room LOOKED out to the tree between the two white posts in the second image above.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-11-2004 12:16 PM

As far as I understood it Boltzmann only said that atomism DID NOT contradict INFINITE DIVISIBILITY. Einstein appears to have thought of this population physically sampled in a different parrallel however.I was always confused with applications of the word "fractal" if it was possible that there might be degrees of self-similiarity and if one reads Mandelbrot closely it is possible to notice that should matter distributions VARY across scales OF self-similarity (finitely)(normal, elliptic (not only phone noise example mandlebrot used to use the word fractal from ...)then at least as to the material of allometry there might be this AND infinte divisibility biologically. The difficulty would have been saying WHAT THIS geometrically DEFINES KINEMATICALLY given there is some dynamic motion but it is not something I have thought from this logically to the motion that would have been observable if one was not to make a Lebseque collection issue out the motion. I think this is how it was the Einstein preferred parralells in the universe mathematically no matter the tensor. I have not thought what this is equivalently for maths of population genetics from which I might venture a cognition on human abilities in this understandable area. Of course Gould would accept what you said about matter but I, with that said about Boltzman above, with trying to think (NONPLATONICALLY!!!!!!) a Russel Strech VIA Gladshev's law (seperation of level starting supramolecularly underlying the layer that would have had motion and would have moved)braiding in the PARENT OR HYBRID the axiom of choice to this single denotation of former double Mendelism connotation yields sans infintie divisibility itself (read Boscovich if you want some thoughts about how phyiscally this might be approached REGRESSIVELY) extensions which measure the difference of a number of propositional functions & objects where INDEED infinte repetition IS NOT necessary to constitute a "fractal" of a given hausdorf dimension.I think that is mathematically correct. Perhaps a better mathmatician can find an error in it. The works becuase the biology enables one to split the fundamental series and the progression in the regression differently formally but whether this MEANS there is a change in motion, I dont know. There would be represenations FROM THE FRACTAL that may be only logical and heirarchical and hence not of another dimension (where dichotmously history was talked about but may be only the geometry I thought in the begining of this post really instead) but the form would be permanent. Newton's reflections on double refractions in ICELAND SPAR come to mind which gives material to your reflection if I'm not mistaken. I only thought it chemically rather than morally.

I met with Von Weizsacker
childrenofthemanhattanproject.org - This website is for sale! - Manhattan Project Atomic Bomb MPHPA World War II World War 2 Nuclear Atomic Age Gadget Oak Ridge Resources and Information.
and he wanted to know if I was a physicist,mathematician or philosopher AFTER I, BSM< corrected him, on his denotation of actual infinity. He had confused the audience into thinking Aristotle when he had meant Cantor.

I see where you might have an issue with the word "self". Hold on, this is going to take some time to explain, in detail. First I have to give a trumpet over to Mammy before he freezes our ice age. I see no reason a natural object must have the SAME dimension of self-similiarity on every level of magnitude even though Mandelbrot got the length of Great Britain given that it was the same. All living shapes need not have to correlate with space across the English Channel. (That was a joke). I know you have responded to more from me than I have given back. You are the only poster here really using the technology as I see fits well. I am sorry I have not given you more attention.

Yes it would be so subject to QM. I guess that unless I can no more linear work, it is possible I will not need for sensing biology material things this small. I dont believe in ghosts and aliens. Yes, you are correct but perhaps I will have something to say of Plank's oven later.Kant had, "But, although this rule of progress to infinity is legitimate and applicable to the subdivision of a phenomenon, as a mere occupation or filling of space, it is not applicable to a whole consisting of a number of distinct parts and constituting a quantum discretum - that is to say, an organized body. It cannnot be admitted that every part in an organized whole is itself organized, and that, in analyzing it to infintiy, we must always meet with organized parts; although we may allow that the parts of the matter which we decompose in infinitum, maybe organized. For the infinity of the division of a phenomenon in space rests altogether on the fact that the divisibility of a phenomenon is given only in and through this infinity, that is an undetermined number of parts is given, while the parts themselves are given and determined only in and through the sub-division; in a word, the infinity of the division necessarily presupposes that the whole is not already divided in se. Hence our division determines a number of parts in the whole - a number which extends as far as the actual regress in the division; while, on the other hand, the very notion of a body organized to infinity represents the whole as already and in itself divided. We expect, therefore, to find in it a determinate, but, at the same time, infinite, number of parts- which is self-contradictory. For we should thus have a whole containing the series of members which could not be completed in any regress - which is infinite, and at the same time complete in an organized composite. Infinite divisibility is applicable only to a quantum continuum, and is based entirely on the infinite divisibility of space. But in a quantum discretum the multitude of parts or units is always determined, and hence always equal to some number..."I only wonder if the metric might get turned around at the quantum level biological to include from alegra to geography a geometry of conditioned topology that takes advantage of infinite divisibility based on non-extinction IN A discrete continuum subject as you said. This seems the only way that baramins ARE valid naturally. Else the subject is non-biological (in)organic physics and not something I will ever be expert on...This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 12-13-2004 03:59 PM