Monday, October 30, 2017

What is Fundamental?

We have many different ways to talk about the things in the physical universe. Some of those ways we think of as more fundamental, and some as “emergent” or “effective”. But what does it mean to be more or less “fundamental”? Are fundamental things smaller, simpler, more elegant, more economical? Are less-fundamental things always made from more-fundamental? How do less-fundamental descriptions relate to more-fundamental ones? FQXi Administrator Brendan Foster 


240 E₈ polytope vertices using 5D orthographic_projection to 2D using 5-cube (Penteract) Petrie_polygon basis_vectors overlaid on electron diffraction pattern of an Icosahedron Zn-Mg-Ho Quasicrystal.

This is an interesting question for me. Because in a sense it is closely related to what is foundational. Let me explain. The foundational attribute of any perspective has to have a fundamental basis for an understanding of what comes next.  The immediacy is recognition of the fundamental,  is its beauty.

 The 2011 Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to Dan Shechtman for his experimental breakthrough that changed our thinking about possible forms of matter. More recently, colleagues and I have found evidence that quasicrystals may have been among the first minerals to have formed in the solar system. Paul Steinhardt 2012 : WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE DEEP, ELEGANT, OR BEAUTIFUL EXPLANATION?

So this leads me backwards to the idea expressed as the,  "smaller, simpler, more elegant and more economical." Everyone wants to know when matter begins, and if such an expression is to realize matter is emergent, then it would require an explanation for what that matter may be as being fundamental. That all matter then,  is a measure of the now "as a parameter of existence" of our current reality.

"From future structural and kinematical studies of known quasicrystals, such as AlNiCo, these principles may be established providing a new understanding of and new control over the formation and structure of quasicrystals. See: A New Paradigm for the Structure of Quasicrystals


After working though the years gathering information and learning from many who I had come across in the pursuit of science and its understanding, I have been lead to believe that an answer to this question is like going back in time to the beginning of our cosmos. How the universe has been clocked according to the discoveries that have been made. It has been a leading insight to push further back to realize that such an idea of geometry at the basis of the existence is an old attribute given toward as the idea Plato had according to his solids.


"...underwriting the form languages of ever more domains of mathematics is a set of deep patterns which not only offer access to a kind of ideality that Plato claimed to see the universe as created with in the Timaeus; more than this, the realm of Platonic forms is itself subsumed in this new set of design elements-- and their most general instances are not the regular solids, but crystallographic reflection groups. You know, those things the non-professionals call . . . kaleidoscopes! * (In the next exciting episode, we'll see how Derrida claims mathematics is the key to freeing us from 'logocentrism'-- then ask him why, then, he jettisoned the deepest structures of mathematical patterning just to make his name...)

* H. S. M. Coxeter, Regular Polytopes (New York: Dover, 1973) is the great classic text by a great creative force in this beautiful area of geometry (A polytope is an n-dimensional analog of a polygon or polyhedron. Chapter V of this book is entitled 'The Kaleidoscope'....)"



One should neither be fooled that I focus on the matter as being fundamental then, and as a substance,it is less then a desired result of any measure when I speak of that geometry.  So how is it possible then to say that something is fundamental here if I say the geometry? The space-time emergence,  is as from a liquid that the collision process extols the lighthouse affect and I am blinded by it.? This is given as an expression of the new ways in which we measure particulates outwardly  expressed from the beginnings of that "collision process"  only of in a configured in space, but within the LHC too?

***

See also:

Friday, October 20, 2017

Can a Computer Be Conscious?

Neuroscience hypothesizes that consciousness is generated by the interoperation of various parts of the brain, called the neural correlates of consciousness or NCC, though there are challenges to that perspective. Proponents of Artificial consciousness (AC)believe it is possible to construct systems (e.g., computer systems) that can emulate this NCC interoperation.[2] 


 Can you imagine what the one computer your sitting in front of is connected too? Frankenly,  it would have consciousness?

Upon hearing this, one might be inclined to ask, “If a computer can’t be conscious, then how can a brain?” After all, it is a purely physical object that works according to physical law. It even uses electrical activity to process information, just like a computer. Yet somehow we experience the world subjectively—from a first person perspective where inner, qualitative and ineffable sensations occur that are only accessible to us. Take for example the way it feels when you see a pretty girl, drink a beer, step on a nail, or hear a moody orchestra.

The truth is, scientists are still trying to figure all this out. ­How physical phenomena, like biochemical and electrical processes, create sensation and unified experience is known as the “Hard Problem of Consciousness”, and is widely recognized by neuroscientists and philosophers. Even neuroscientist and popular author Sam Harris—who shares Musk’s robot-rebellion concerns—acknowledges the hard problem when stating that whether a machine could be conscious is “an open question”. Unfortunately he doesn’t seem to fully realize that for machines to pose an existential threat arising from their own self-interests, conscious is required. See:  Why Digital Computers Can’t Have Consciousness By Bobby Azarian

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

Janna Levin: Black Hole Blues and Other Songs from Outer Space





Janna Levin: Black Hole Blues and Other Songs from Outer Space
Speaker(s): Janna Levin
Abstract: 

More than a billion years ago, two black holes collided. In the final second of their long life together, the black holes banged out a rhythm like mallets on a drum, creating gravitational waves – ripples in the shape of spacetime. One hundred years ago, Albert Einstein predicted the existence of such waves, though it seemed improbable – if not outright impossible – that we’d ever be able to actually detect them. They were long considered too faint for any earthbound experiment to measure. Undaunted, experimentalists were determined to measure these Lilliputian ripples, and after many decades of work and collaboration, they built LIGO – the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory. This incredible sophisticated and sensitive instrument was made to listen for the beat of that distant drum. In 2015, a billion years after the two black holes collided, their waves rippled through the LIGO detectors in Louisiana and Washington. With these remarkable new observatories, we can now capture the soundtrack to accompany the silent movie of the history of our universe.

Tuesday, May 16, 2017

Being is an Objectification of the EGO

Is 'Being' The Same For Everyone?


Being is an Objectification of the EGO

So what do I mean. The commonality of the question posted by Ala Noe is to suggest that there is something that is the same between all of us. I pondered this,  as I look at what becomes self-evident in our pursuit of meaning "as being" is the same.

A first principle is a basic, foundational, self-evident proposition or assumption that cannot be deduced from any other proposition or assumption.

I descend to the objectified state,  as the same being.  What does this mean then that any self evident position must realize that we move from first principles. Hence,  establish an apriore existence as to our being "as more" then the commonality that we exist "as the EGO" modifies to become the objectification as us all being. A construct of this reality then? You see how much more we have in common then what was first believe as "being the same," for everyone?

 We are confined to the outward marks, the mere behavior — and that's just not enough to know another, to really understand him or her, or to trust.
So then the reality of an objectified existence placed as the outward language of appearance preceded by, an understanding of our EGO manufactured. A materialist definition of all action as a dire result of the expression of being, as our "measure of being." But we are more are we not, then by its appearance and the question of skepticism,  of there being more then?

So yes there is more then the social constructed fabrication as the outward appearance of the commonality of our being. The measure,  of our being. So we must look past outward appearance to a more soulful understanding of the projection of an objectified world. The relation of Virtues toward our relation with regard to first principle "is" an inherent relation to being more soulful. A more soulful country then as a more soulful world rests in our being a more soulful person?


René Descartes

For the Rationalist philosopher René Descartes, virtue consists in the correct reasoning that should guide our actions. Men should seek the sovereign good that Descartes, following Zeno, identifies with virtue, as this produces a solid blessedness or pleasure. For Epicurus the sovereign good was pleasure, and Descartes says that in fact this is not in contradiction with Zeno's teaching, because virtue produces a spiritual pleasure, that is better than bodily pleasure. Regarding Aristotle's opinion that happiness depends on the goods of fortune, Descartes does not deny that these goods contribute to happiness, but remarks that they are in great proportion outside one's own control, whereas one's mind is under one's complete control. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue#Ren.C3.A9_Descartes

Sunday, April 16, 2017

The Sound of Blackholes?



During her live public lecture webcast at Perimeter Institute on May 3, 2017, Janna Levin of Columbia University will explain LIGO's “discovery of the century” and what it means for the future of science.

See: Black Hole Blues and Other Songs from Outer Space: Janna Levin Public Lecture

Mysterious Cosmic Explosion Puzzles Astronomers


A Quick Look at CDF-S XTI

***

Credit: NASA/CXC/Pontifical Catholic Univ./F.Bauer et al.
  See Also: Mysterious Cosmic Explosion Puzzles Astronomers

***

 
We report on the detection of a remarkable new fast high-energy transient found in the Chandra Deep Field-South, robustly associated with a faint (mR=27.5 mag, zph2.2) host in the CANDELS survey. The X-ray event is comprised of 115+1211 net 0.3-7.0 keV counts, with a light curve characterised by a 100 s rise time, a peak 0.3-10 keV flux of 5×1012 erg s1 cm2, and a power-law decay time slope of 1.53±0.27. The average spectral slope is Γ=1.43+0.230.13, with no clear spectral variations. The \hbox{X-ray} and multi-wavelength properties effectively rule out the vast majority of previously observed high-energy transients. A few theoretical possibilities remain: an "orphan" X-ray afterglow from an off-axis short-duration Gamma-ray Burst (GRB) with weak optical emission; a low-luminosity GRB at high redshift with no prompt emission below 20 keV rest-frame; or a highly beamed Tidal Disruption Event (TDE) involving an intermediate-mass black hole and a white dwarf with little variability. However, none of the above scenarios can completely explain all observed properties. Although large uncertainties exist, the implied rate of such events is comparable to those of orphan and low-luminosity GRBs as well as rare TDEs, implying the discovery of an untapped regime for a known transient class, or a new type of variable phenomena whose nature remains to be determined. SeeA New, Faint Population of X-ray Transients