TVO S James Gates on Does Reality have a Genetic Basis

Comment by Jonathan Barlow Gee on October 29, 2014 at 1:39am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adinkra_symbols_(physics)

because the subject matter being examined in "super-string equations" is, necessarily, dependent on it being "super-symmetric," the variables in such equations will, thus, also be symmetric to one another when these equations are placed relatively to one another, and this effect will, predictably, occur in such a manner that graphically visualizable patterns will occur between the symmetric placements of variables in the string-theory equations. Thus, if you place the equations in an arrangement implied by the locations of their identical variables relative to one another, the result will conform to standard "adinkra" type graphs primarily due to the symmetries of these graphs. Other models, such as those proposed for modeling symmetries found in the Hebrew letters of the Torah by Stan Tenen, also apply symmetry models to graphing depictions of how seemingly random variables relate and have also borne significant fruit. Likewise, the works of Carlos Paris on prime-number graphing patterns resembling mandelbrot fractal branching cycles, the works of Tony Smith on E8-physics models, Martin Krzywinski on graphic depictions for Pi, Phi and E, as well as the "Accidental Similarity Number," as well as many other researchers currently, are all relevant to the decryption of a cosmic "primer," or key to unlocking a complete understanding of universal physics from the astro- to the quantum- levels, that goes beyond being merely a "theory" of everything.

 it shouldn't be surprising to find "symmetries" that can be graphically depicted when studying "super-string" theory, because "super-string theory" depends on "super-symmetry" as a basis for its equations to work.

the ONLY flaw in this application to computer coding that I can see seems to be in the arbitrary assignation of one variable in one equation to a binary significator in all equations that also contain this variable. If one wished to create a "language" of "equations" by assigning the "variables" used in them all to a set of "letters" as in an "alphabet," one could select any pre-existent such set of "letters" in an "alphabet" to use (most alphabets use around 20-30 letters as symbols for sounds), but if one chooses to use the binary language of computer programming, one is arbitrarily ruling out other computer programming languages, such as bin-hex and pure hexidecimal, that exist now, let alone any that may be developed in the future (such as those based on so-called "quantum computing" forming a "trinary" language including a third, "partial" state between the "open" one and "closed" zero states of pure binary).

Comment by Jonathan Barlow Gee on October 29, 2014 at 1:39am

the specific formating for the binary computer language is a format attributed to Claude Shannon, so-called "father of information theory," from the 1940's, admittedly a long time prior to the advent of the use of binary language in modern computer programming. This specific format for coding binary is called "doubly-even self-dual linear binary error-correcting block code" and is actually a combination of multiple different aspects of encryption developed by multiple, different cryptographers since the 1940's, so the attribution of its sole invention to Claude Shannon is, also, misleadingly oversimplifying.

for example, consider "symmetry" as it relates to the difference between an "idealized" cosmic model and our own real universe in the context of "spin" and "counter-spin." In physics, a spherical particle has "spin" in 3 directions (called, in the spherical geometry of particle physics, "vectors"): 1. rotation around its own central axis; 2. revolution around a larger mass object; 3. precession of the polar axis of rotation. However, for each direction of "spin" on the surface of a sphere, there is also the opposite potential direction for "counter-spin." Counter-spin is to spin alike what "potential energy" is to "kinetic energy." Kinetic energy is the amount of energy that is harvested from a physical reaction in material reality, while potential energy is the full amount of energy that could be released from such a reaction in theoretical application. Potential energy is almost always greater than kinetic energy in the same ratio Plato described as the "golden mean" dividing the "materially real" realms from those of "pure ideal." Because ONLY spin exists in reality, and counter-spin is ONLY able to be harnessed as "potential" energy, then ONLY 1/2 of what COULD be real actually IS likely, even possible, in material reality itself. Theory surrounds reality like the atmosphere of a planet surrounds its geographic mantle. Expansion to reality can, therefore, occur in ANY direction one wishes to pursue in their quest into the realm of pure theory. In theory, as is almost the case in the micro-gravity of outer-space, there is zero resistance to any expansion.

thus, where there is "symmetry" between expected results deriving from the realm of theory and actual observations derived from the realm of material reality, then there is expansion to our database of understanding about universal laws. However, generally speaking, only a portion of what is predicted in theory is supported by material evidence. This does not mean the remainder of theories are "impossible," it only means they describe events other than those that occur given the physical laws and conditions of our own present cosmos. For example, "ether drift" is not DISPROVED by "relativity," merely elaborated upon to be made more specific in terms of which aspects of the original, holistic theory are applicable to predicted and real observations about our present material existence. The remainder of implications of the original "ether drift" theory are not "ruled out," nor, even if the majority, do they "prove false" the original theory. The theory merely describes a cosmos existing under a similar, though slightly different, set of rules than our own. In other words, when scientists say "all else being equal," they mean more or less the same thing philosophers mean when we say "in an ideal world."

Comment