Monday, February 02, 2009

AWT and plicate topology

By AWT every causal (logical) theory becomes part of physical reality by the same way, like physical artifact itself, which are dual to it. We tend to consider only reproducible repeating events/artifact as real, thus fulfilling the theories and their causal implication. The random fluctuation of Aether density isn't real for us, until we recognize it like electron, photon, etc., i.e. until we assign it into some conceptual group. Only the fact, consciousness is forming environment for these waves, we tend to consider ideas a non-material artifacts by the same way like the Aether, which is dual approach to consciousness from this perspective.

By this way, the observable reality is forming a brane manifold between our ideas and observations (perceptions) mediated by wits and it has both objective, both subjective character of belief. The symmetry of this duality is broken toward multiplicity of casual approach and intersubjective opinon due the emergence paradigm (more is really more).

The physical theories are ideas formalized by group of nested logical implications, which are connected mutually by correspondence principle. Each implication is defined by its causal time arrow, defining the causality. The time arrow is defined by root system of higher order tensors describing the gradient of space-time compactification, which can be furthermore interpreted by a rotation by Lorentz/Poincaré group in causal space. Implication tensor defines a time arrow of causal space-time curvature and subsequent compactification of it. Therefore antecedent /consequent components of every implication are defining time arrow of theory, thus forming a manifolds of causal space and conceptual basis of every theory.

At less abstract level, ideas/concepts are low energy nested density gradients ("strings" or "membranes") of compacted space-time formed by gradients of electrochemical activity inside of human brain. By holographic theory we can consider them as a supersymmetric low energy density projection of the observable reality into our consciousness. Every idea is represented by dense cluster of standing waves of electrochemical activity inside of our brain, which can become shared and entangled between brains of many members of human society. The process of understanding/sharing of such ideas corresponds the collapse of their wave functions: as the result, these ideas aren't chaotic and invariant for us anymore, they become a component of more general order, characterized by higher level of ideas.

This concept was presented first by Bohm in form of it's implicate/explicate order and it was extrapolated later by "Holographic Brain Theory" of Karl Pribram and by theory of Quantum consciousness of David Chalmers and Sir Roger Penrose. These concepts have all robust physical meaning in context of Heim's theory and AWT.


Zephir said...

There is the annoying problem with falsifiable theories: they sometimes get falsified.

This is entertaining point, illustrating the nature of emergence, Gödel's incompleteness theorem, unfalsifiability of formal theories, etc. in one sentence.

Zephir said...

We cannot have progress in science without healthy faith in postulates and various extrapolations of theories in the same way, like we cannot have progress in science without strict adherence to logics. After all, every implication is sort of belief - it extrapolates antecedent into consequent like vector in causual space-time.

Many crackpots, but even pathological skeptics are violating this equilibrium often. Pathological skeptics are religious believers like crackpots - they just prefer to believe in negative hypothesis. These skeptics are usually believing, their approach is more scientific, but they're usually wrong.

There is very thin line between religious ignorance and skeptical ignorance. For example Holly Church was skeptical to Galileo findings simply because it adhered to existing scientific models. Today we have tendency to consider its stance as religious, but in Galileo times this stance was skeptical one.

Anonymous said...

You'd probably get more support if:

A) You didn't hate the scientific method.

B) You had someone who could correct your constant grammatical errors.

C) You stopped using so many made up words and concepts. That kind of thing is okay if you're writing a book where people are slowly introduced to your 'framework'... but this article for example can't stand on its own. To me, it sounds like I started reading the middle of a bad science fiction book.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, above, has given you VERY good advice. Do everything you can to TAKE that advice.

I was very interested in what I expected to find here. Instead, I simply laughed... a lot. Halfway through, I began to presume that the article was a spoof -- an intentional joke.

Yes -- it's that bad. Form matters.

Zephir said...

I'm not hating scientific method, but extending it. Form matters for formalists only.

Zephir said...

In dense aether theory the reality is gradient density driven and it appears like density fluctuations in dense gas. You cannot see that gas - only density fluctuations of it. It means, observable reality is inconsistent and dispersive by its very nature - if it wouldn't, we would see it at all.

AWT describes math theories with implicate geometry model. The theories are formed with density fluctuations in casual space, which are connecting scalar points (scalar axioms) with density gradients (vector, tensors) represented with implications. It means, the casual structure of math theories is similar to structure of universe and it appears like foam.

After then we are facing the very same inconsistency problem: every theory must consist from at least pair of postulates, which are defining it's implication vector and enabling their extrapolation (i.e. testable prediction) along line. But if these postulates would be fully consistent, we could replace them with single one and whole theory would change into tautology. You cannot extrapolate a line from single point in unique way.

In such way, every formal theory must remain inconsistent at least a bit - or it would change into tautology without true value. It just seems, math theory, the Peano algebra in particular is no exception. On this trivial insight the Goedel's incompleteness theorems are based, too.