John Archibald Wheeler proposed The One law for the Universe; Boundary of the boundary is zero - BB Principle.
In symbols:
∂∂ = 0.
From Warner Allen Miller ,"The Geometrodynamic Content of the Regge Equations as Illuminated by the Boundary of a Boundary Principle", (pp. 201-227 in Between Quantum and Cosmos: Studies and Essays in Honor of John Archibald Wheeler, Wojciech Hubert Zurek, Alwyn van der Merwe, Warner Allen Miller, Princeton University Press 1988):
All our laws of nature would be then consequences of this one. Looks nice and simple indeed. In topology and in algebraic topology it holds indeed, either as a theorem or as a postulated fundamental property.
In my vision there is also one law: it is the "Law of Free Fall". Everything moves along a geodesic of some kind of "geometry". Can these two visions, Wheeler's and mine, be merged into one vision? Is free fall another expression of BB? Is BB just another expression of Free Fall? And what about Free Will?
And then: why THIS law and not some other? And why one law and not two or three? Or even an infinite number of laws? Why?
While looking for answers, enlarging my knowledge (and my ignorance as well, but only linearly), I am asking myself: "Am I of this world?"
"And so we wander on our way asking ourselves—if truth be known, muttering to ourselves really—“Am I of this world or the other?” and answering “I am of both.” And we remind ourselves of this as we go along."
"Through this circular river symbol, the moat, the tale warns us that this water is not just any water but a certain kind. It is a boundary water, much like the circle the maiden drew around herself to keep the Devil away. When one crosses into or through a circle, one is entering into or passing through to another state of being, another state of awareness, or lack of one. "
Clarissa Pinkola Estes, "Women Who Run With The Wolves",
P.S.1
P.S.2. Just chceked my researchGate mail. Discovered a message from September:
"Hallo Arkadiusz,
I looked to your your Preprint Time of arrival operator in the momentum space, it is interesting and please see my paper (blow) , where one can see the relation to the Fujiwara–Kobe time operator, sec 4 of your preprint.
https://www.mdpi.com/2624-960X/2/2/15
or
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/340491512_Time_Operator_Real_Tunneling_Time_in_Strong_Field_Interaction_and_the_Attoclock_Open_access_journal_Quantum_Report_httpswwwmdpicomjournalquantumrep
"The young and the injured are uninitiated. Neither knows much about the dark predator and are, therefore, credulous. But, fortunately, when the predator is on the move, it leaves behind unmistakable tracks in dreams. These tracks eventually lead to its discovery, capture and containment."
"Wild Ways teaches people when not to act 'nice' about protecting their souls. The instinctive nature knows that being 'sweet' in these instances only makes the predator smile. When the soul is being threatened, it is not only acceptable to draw the line and mean it, it is required."
P.S.5. I am back to conformal infinity. It is a part of U(2). Perhaps I will write a note about it.
P.S.6. From the battlefield Planet Earth;
P.S.7. I have on my table these two books. Oh God, how much I would like to know their content and master it!. Why it is not possible for us to bring these books close to our heads and download their content (even if it may take a while), and push the button "Understand" and another button "Now"? Why?
P.S.8. You should not miss or neglect this one:
„John Archibald Wheeler proposed The One law for the Universe; Boundary of the boundary is zero - BB Principle.”.
ReplyDeleteBeautiful is this law. After a prolonged insight into it, it manifests like the Absolute, the Dawn or the Plotinian Unity.
The boundary of the boundary is zero.
„In my vision there is also one law: it is the "Law of Free Fall". Everything moves along a geodesic of some kind of "geometry". Can these two visions, Wheeler's and mine, be merged into one vision? Is free fall another expression of BB? Is BB just another expression of Free Fall? And what about Free Will?”
I think these are just different expressions. They can be understood in the same way as different visions of God.
We want to achieve unity, meanwhile internally we are constantly differentiating, setting boundaries and searching for them.
I have just analysed Wheeler–DeWitt equation. What we commonly call time is encoded in spatial configurations. Time makes it difficult for us to know, to grasp the deepest idea - the unity. I think about time all the time. For the last few months more than ever before. I think in its essence is the answer to the biggest question.
"Why it is not possible for us to bring these books close to our heads and download their content (even if it may take a while), and push the button "Understand" and another button "Now"? ".
ReplyDeleteThe difficult is that which takes a little time, the impossible is what takes a little longer.
I think all the knowledge that is contained in any textbook you actually have in yourself. Then you just have to understand that you already know it and that what you see in the textbook is just a formal record of the essence of your thoughts.
Mathematics is, in fact, a formal approximation of the structures that consciousness perceives (one consciousness, I do not mean the division into individual human beings). The question is to what extent we can access this knowledge and how we can find it represented in the form of a mathematical formula.
How exactly do you understand "integration"?
ReplyDeleteYour entire statement on integration is clear to me apart from this sentence:
ReplyDelete"But there is also useless knowledge: a knowledge that cannot be integrated with our other knowledge, because it belongs to a different "species" of knowledge.".
What are the different "species" of knowledge? Give some examples.
„We all have finite resources and we have to choose whether we want to know superficially possibly many subjects, or to know really deeply at least one.”.
ReplyDeleteI see a problem here, however. It all depends very much on how much passion and emotion we put into our problems and questions.
For example, someone might be a scientist of a discipline wanting to understand some aspect of that discipline.
At some point, you may notice that the method used in this area does not allow you to go further. Hence, even though you may want to deal only with this, you stop feeling it if you do not relate it to other aspects of your life.
It can be said, for example, that mathematics has theoretically nothing to do with music. Yes, there are some studies that show that certain aspects of our brains related to music are related to those related to mathematics, but after all, no normal person would say that listening to music can help to understand mathematical structures or that understanding them implies the need to create music.
However, if you do have some visions, e.g. during dreams, they can (but probably don't have to) manifest themselves in many different ways.
Suppose you dream about some strange quotient algebras etc. In your dreams you see them, multidimensional manifolds appear, which you no longer see on waking, but a certain record remains in your mind, you remember the impressions that were present when you saw these structures in your dreams.
What is this one thing? If you are actually living a problem, it is possible that it will manifest itself to you in many different ways. You will see images, you will hear sounds, you will see structures. Later, you look, for example, into a book on quantum algebras and recognise similar structures. There they are written down in formulas, but if you start to visualise them for yourself it turns out that some of them resemble your dreams.
At some point you just see different aspects of your problem. You feel the problem in mystical ways, musically you can write it down as all-encompassing, you can paint pictures that remind you of your impressions, you can see the biological and theological aspects of the problem as well as its presence in concrete mathematical structures. In essence, you are only concerned with one thing at all times.
If this problem has preoccupied your mind sufficiently and you have certain constructs associated with it in that mind then you will hear them in music, see them in artworks, as well as in any field you are involved in. If you are currently studying, for example, clinical psychology then you will of course write a paper on the perception of time, in which you will of course refer to physics, philosophy and neuroscience.
Why write about time perception? Because the more you 'feel' this problem on every plane of your existence, the more it reveals itself in everything you deal with.
You may not feel it. Then you can learn, for example, quantum groups, but this learning is tiring and unpleasant when there is no passion in it, when you don't see your personal religion in all this - your life, your mission.
Will be continued.
"For instance: when we learn about complex numbers, we understand much better real numbers about which we have learned before.
ReplyDeleteAnd when we learn about Hopf algebras, we understand much better how to translate them into a piano concerto, for example. This can work similarly even in seemingly unrelated fields.
These relationships are usually symmetrical. If we already start writing this piano concerto about Hopf algebras and listen to it, we will consequently understand them even better.
The problem remains the technical aspects in both cases. Writing a piano concerto requires painstakingly writing down the score, which is additionally not easy and sometimes very frustrating. The various algebraic operations are very similar. However, I prefer to do anything when I have an overall vision and at a given moment learn what I need to complete it. And in addition, there are arrangers or professors who are willing to consult and clarify inaccuracies. Such people can help manifest what was born as a mystical revelation. You, of course, also need to know something about it, nevertheless, what ultimately guides you is only the vision.
I personally think everybody capable of getting a Bachelors degree in something should know things like differential geometry at the level I do which is basically just thinking of a projective SL(4,R) connection related to the volume form for an inertia-ish geodesic, an SO(4,2) aka SU(2,2) conformal connection related to the pseudo-Riemannian metric and an affine parameter related to generalized proper time (and sort of the same as a solder form or propagator phase).
ReplyDeleteI wish I knew math enough to work with them from the bottom up but I just use a top level vision/philosophy to see where they fit. This vision is basically just an even Clifford algebra bosons/spacetime geometry acting on its Clifford algebra odd grade spinor fermion components. The unique thing I do via Tony Smith, is using cellular automata rule pictures to picture the Lie algebra, metric, volume form, affine parameter, and components in the Clifford algebra.
I'm of course limited but just on my own. I can read Ark talking about a degenerate metric, or SU(4,4), or 12 being 4 plus an octonion like conformal 6 is 4 plus 2 (complex number), or a better GRW than GRW (EEQT) and be excited about things I never could get to with just cellular automata rules. The masses should be able to be excited by this too.
P.S.8. You should not miss or neglect this one:
Deletehttps://youtu.be/GqJjiAXnWdQ