Off of what edge does the Monster prevent us from falling? On the early maps of the world, in the blank areas, terra incognita, it was customary to depict a monster or two. It kept the explorers guessing.
In explaining the MG we can hardly appeal to simplicity. The MG seems the archetype of extravagance. What we seem to be missing is a phenomenology of math. There seems to be nothing natural about the MG.
It is math that keeps us from falling off the edge when we come to the quantum. It is only with the quantum that mathematical physics comes into its own. This has to do with the greater level of abstraction introduced by the probability wave functions and the concomitant projection operators. With the quantum we fall into the infinite dimensional Hilbert space. At the same time we are forced to take onboard the theory of complex numbers. These abstract spaces open us up to issues of symmetry. It is the MG that connects for us the discrete and non-discrete symmetries, having to do with the 'moonshine' conjecture and string theory.
It is these symmetries which hold the atoms and particles together. They cannot be smashed, they can only be transformed from one symmetry state to another. There is a process of self-containment and closure that can be expressed only with mathematics. This logical closure is the basis of our ontic stability and identity. This same closure is responsible for the melding of the ontic and epistemic in physics.
If we project back in time or out in space, it is the big-bang that saves our appearances. If we project down in scale it is math that saves the appearances. It is the MG, in its coverage of the discrete and non-discrete, that melds these disparate projections. The smoothing out of the rough edges of reality is of more than academic concern. It has to do with the ouroboric/bootstrap nature of reality. Coherence cannot be a local phenomenon. It is cosmic or nothing. Tying together all the loose ends requires a knot of Gordian proportions. The Langlands and Erlangen programs of mathematics speak to this coherence. It is about the rationalization of math, the squaring of the circle.
The discreteness of the atom allows us to combinatorially fill every ecological niche. This metabolic combinatorics accounts for the continuity of nature. The logical closure of nature is what grounds and redirects our transcendental impulse leading to the eschaton. The MG is the Anthropos in mathematical dress. It is our jumping-off point to eternity. It is our Cartesian pineal gland. The UEM is just a manifestation of the ouroboric principle. The MG expresses the finitude of the Anthropos and Gaia, and so it ensures and may even codify the eschaton.
It does appear, to me at least, that the BPWH has been significantly consolidated this time around, by bringing closer together the principal loose ends. Outstanding from above is the conflict in the placements of Alpha. The acquisition of language is spread out over time and space, whereas the introduction of certain ceremonial sports is more easily specified. It could be two stages of a single process. We allow Alpha to be segmented or articulated. And so may be the Omega.
The aesthetics of mathematics (beauty & mathematics - 950,000 hits) provides another handle on the organicity of mathematics. Combine this with the UEM and the Ramanujan phenomenon and we see the ouroboric principle operating on all levels of reality. My point is that a world without a robust mathematics is inconceivable. The most direct line of progression here is metabolism -> chemistry -> quantum -> math. Another similar progression is ecology -> evolution -> big-bang -> math. Leaving out any one of these steps would result in a logical hole in the world. Its coherence would be radically reduced. To be is to relate. Without the relational power of mathematics, being would be impoverished. Without this mathematical extension nature would be at loose ends. The Grand Unified Theory may be a false summit of coherence, but that does not negate its contribution thereto. Dualistic thinking about mind and matter has spilled over into a perceived dualism of math and matter. That duality is artificial. There is then nothing unreasonable about the effectiveness of mathematics.
Stars and fossils remain challenging for the idealist. We have to arrange for filling in the background of deep time and deep space.
Stars could fairly easily fall under the aegis of Sol. Sol is then the main challenge, and we can subsume that in the metabolic frame heliotropism. Given a round Earth and gravity, it is not a big step to placing a primary energy source. The physical details of the Sun are emergent properties along with atoms. The Sun is a spin-off of the big-bang.
The fossils are a different challenge, but it would be strange if there were no 'record' of the evolutionary phenomenology. The Earth needs to be antiqued. This need not, however, require any very special provisions beyond what we have for atoms and the big-bang. This is following the path of least intervention.
Given a spatial frame, the logic of atoms is inescapable, just ask the Greeks. We invoke an anthropic Telos as our final cause, which then elicits a chain of being out from the background of atomic logic. The big-bang is the logical anchor that is projected out from the Alpha end of the chain. All the rest of the chain, including stars and fossils, is just a path of least phenomenological resistance.
Need this be implausible? We underestimate the degree to which plausibility is socially conditioned. In short, we will very easily get used to it, if we have the slightest motivation to do so. The scientists will cry crocodile tears. Poor dears!
Yes, Virginia, there is a Chain of Being. That it appears as natural as it does is a matter of an aesthetics which may best be ascribed to cosmic convenience. The X-factor can be as Zen-like as the best in that tradition. No unnecessary action or disturbance in the cosmic flow. The cosmic Santa relies mainly on us elves to keep the phenomena on the designated track. It's only as we approach the Omega that we experience trepidation. Up to now it has mainly been combinatorics. That's what space is for.
Let me summarize the logical sequence:
Forms/zodiac -> diversity/separation -> combinatorics -> space/atoms -> eco-metabolics -> chain-of-being -> big-bang -> sun-stars-fossils. And the rest is history.
These are the logical organizing principles that guide the phenomenology. This logical guidance of the phenomenology works in a manner similar to what we suppose is the mathematical guidance of physics in the quantum realm. Collectively, we mediate the logical guidance, and we often do so in a teleological fashion.
May we now discard Jurassic Parc? Well, the challenge we have now is to turn the logical sequence into a temporal sequence focused on Alpha. This is the articulated creation. I am prone to discard the fifty-thousand year mark, and head back toward the pokatok/megalithic frame. Prior to that would have been a timeless or time-optional J-Pc. This would have been a test-bed for the basic cycles and functions, with pokatok as an occasional sideshow.
In worrying about J-Pc, we can go back to here. We are looking for the 3-D seed crystal that will include the R archetype in a significant fashion. It is not easy to jump-start the reproductive cycle. Which came first, chicken little or the Omega? To what extent can R be related to the dynamics of Z? What are the metaphors/analogies for R? From whence came the idea of the seed? Bring on the dialectic.
Earlier on this page it was suggested that there might be a link between the ouroboros and the reproductive cycle. Another point to recall is the normativity of biological cycles.
I realize that I don't yet have an explanation for fire. My thoughts turn to Gaston Bachelard and his Psychoanalysis of Fire. Notice also his Poetics of Space, etc. Have I been neglecting Gaston in my phenomenological efforts? Where and how does fire fit into the BPW? Is it mainly logic or aesthetics that explains fire? Gaston points to the Promethean and social aspects of fire. I would sooner point to the technology of fire, being the smith that I am, but that is implied by Prometheus. The sun empowers vegetation. We bring the sun down from the sky and empower ourselves. The domestication of fire is lost in pre-history, a history to which I ascribe a derivative reality. Still we may wonder as to the relation between fire and language in our domestication and socialization, and how these features relate to, or might be included in, the J-Pc/creation scenario. As Gaston points out, the concept of the hearth is crucial in many ways that we can barely appreciate in the age of microwaves. The hearth is the heart of our domiciles. In cooking, we are all alchemists. He further points out that fire is seen as a link between matter and spirit, as in the case of ceremonial sacrifice. Imagine the role of fire in bringing us down from the trees. Consider the role of 'fire water'. Fire is another kind of evaporation and portent of atomicity. Oxidation distinguishes animals from plants. We are the two sides of the carbon cycle. Consider the role of CO2 emissions in our eschatological sensibility. The consideration of fire could cast a more psychological light upon the J-Pc. There remains, however, a phenomenal and logical gap between metabolism and pyrolysis.
With fire, the demands on atomicity are greater than before. It may help to put more emphasis on the numerical ground of atoms. With evaporation we may invoke aqua/heliotropism, but with fire there is no relevant tropism, beyond our own fascination. Forest fires, lightning and volcanoes are a mixed bag. They do seem to have a mind of their own, and they are atomic mainly in theory.
Psychologically, we may not speak of fire without also speaking of ice. That combo has had an enormous impact on the human diaspora. Was that combo a positive creation, or was it a logical spin-off of the main show? The peculiar negative thermal expansion of water near freezing indicates the former case. This observation puts us well beyond Gaston's analysis. It is not clear to me what were the self-imposed limits of his analysis.
In this context I am looking at John Fraim's website. It provides a useful contemporary compendium of symbolism. My contention with Gaston is his embrace of the claustrophobic going back to the womb(/matrix?). Cosmology is not in his lexicon.
We must not forget that the polar thermocline is the Carnot engine of meteorology. Ice limits the organic stress imposed by the thermocline. Atomic substances must have at least two phases. The middle phase is ruled by water.
Cartographic diversity -> meteorology -> thermocline -> ice -> fire.
Does this sequence gives us a better handle on atomism?
Don't forget that CO2 is necessary for plants. What was its supposed primordial source? The primordial atmosphere was nitrogen and methane?
Then we come back to lightning and volcanoes. Were these deliberate? And consider the role of cosmic rays in triggering lightning. Plate tectonics is a rationalizing of cartography. Volcanoes are a residue of this rationalization. That brings up earthquakes. It is hard to find something positive there, but they are a lot less deadly than the mosquito or virus. The virus is a residue of genetics. The game of ecology is serious, and not totally anthropocentric. Nature should not be kept on too short of a leash. No shorter than our leash.
What is the role of the fear of God in the above? Is that a legitimate component of the BPW? We must be reminded that we are on a leash.
How closely related are lightning and electricity in the telos? Is there a psychology of lightning, or is it just its role in the carbon/nitrogen cycles. Is there an overdetermination here? The exact mechanism of charge separation remains obscure. Does it depend on ice? The lightning bolt is the preeminent phenomenon of nature, beyond the eclipse. Did it spark our fascination with fire?
I need to reconsider the four elements: air, earth, fire and water. How do they relate? Then I need to get back to the eschaton, and how that fits into the BPW scheme.
Air and water are essential to transport, particularly of the atomic variety. The combinatorics of metabolism is essential to the combinatorics of space. Space is the way to avoid the limits of Leibniz' II. What becomes of that combinatorics in the eschaton or beyond the portal? In short, what becomes of us. Will there be stages of recombination? Can space gradually become more relational? Cyberspace will be a part of that. Virtual pokatok is a step beyond and back. Halo is of that ilk. RPGs may be truer to form. Metabolism enables self-maintenance. This goes with our territorial/homing instinct. The RPG moves us toward a more functional and group perspective. We have reached the apogee of ego development, and we are reluctant to move beyond that point, despite the pressures and inducements of modern society. Society has learned how to harness the egos to its own, more organic, ends. This is the hidden hand of economics. Forced collectivization is a vision of the past.
Atoms maximize the self-organizing combinatorial possibilities allowed by spatial symmetry. The R cycles are the means of realizing those possibilities.
MDX -> Z -> AO -> QRP.
DX is the Dia/logos. It breaks the Z symmetry into AO. Space/time is formed with QRP. Q expresses the normativity of R and P, and re-expresses the Dia/logos with e^i*pi. The J-Pc corrals the cloning Rs. The J-Pc may also be the primordial gap between A&O. It is a timeless Xcaret, a Camelot. History then encircles that Mt. Meru or axis mundi. The J-Pc leaks out and gradually the core removes itself from the mainstream. It goes off the mass-shell like a virtual particle. It is the mother of all seeds. That's one speculation, anyway.
The digestive and reproductive cycles may be viewed as tandem challenges in the combinatoric scheme. Fire, especially in the guise of internal combustion, is digestion in extremis. Plants operate on external combustion. Ideas don't burn, do they? How will we ever get people to believe that ideas burn? If people can believe that, they will believe just about anything. And isn't that the whole point?!
The conservation of energy in locomotion is a burning issue. This is a space-time symmetry. Why not telekinesis? That symmetry is necessary for combinatorics. In order for ideas to move, they must also be combustible. What is the downside of telekinesis? It would be abused? Or we can't ordinarily break the symmetry? Are continuity and causality separate issues? I have not looked at these. Atoms must be related to both. They are centers of causality and manifest the limits of continuity. That is how Q is kept small. Combustion manifests both. Does combinatorics require these? Atoms are a distributed intelligence. But does that bind mind too tightly to matter? No, it is just the minimal localization of same. We cannot attend to atoms, and so they attend to themselves, when necessary. They are foci of habituation. Some of this is true of numbers. When it comes to continuity we have to think globally and act locally. It's difficult not to take space-time for 'granite'. The jump-starting of atoms and chemistry remains a challenge. How much of a jump-start is Creation? This is the problem of the J-Pc. The problem of cosmogony is genealogical. That is what all the biblical 'begats' are alerting us to. The photons are the stretch marks of space. Does this sound too much like the big bang? They are our communion. UFOs may function in a similar, coordinating fashion. There was no first baby. We are all still babies struggling for the first breath. There is the symbolism of 2001.
Atoms are the logical foci of habituation and physicality. Q is the fudge factor that mediates the conflicting teleological/functional demands that we place on atoms. Do the atoms determine the cycles, or is it the other way? There are trade-offs and conflicts between atomism and teleology. How is the balance maintained? The relation between atoms and numbers remains tenuous.
Optimizing the combinatoric possibilities in time and space is the primary thrust of Creation. How important is Nature for this? Is it merely the logical backdrop for the human drama? Is there not a more positive role? I raise this question back here. In other instances I have stated that God uses nature to hide behind, but that is nothing positive. It was a major deal to go with nature. It was an all or nothing decision. To what degree is nature just an obstacle to be overcome by us? Or is it just to balance the carbon cycle? Could there be an Earth without Gaia? It would simply be incoherent. There could not be flora without fauna.
Ecology is an all or nothing game, and it cannot be played without giving much autonomy to the atoms. This is why materialism has such a hold on us. The space-time combinatorics must begin at the atomic level, but then the atoms must be kept on a short ontological leash. That requirement remains to be fleshed out. This must relate to Q, but Q is not something that is added to atoms. Atoms emerge from it. That misunderstanding may explain the quantum enigmas. The dialectics of e^i*pi must come into this. Fleshing out Q may be the next priority. It is the least determinate of the archetypes.
That matter emerges from Q, whatever it may be, has not yet been appreciated. e^i*pi is only a small aspect of Q and P. (Physics students must understand that these are not the anti-commuting quantum variables of the same names.) A point to consider is the relation between matter and memory. Also consider that this problem is a bitch, along with the Nature that it is. We are just trying to see what makes matter substantial. Certainly the physicists have not a clue. Substance is just something that metaphysicians used to worry about. The relationality of it is hard to compute. How can there be a virtual substance? Substantiality is largely qualitative and normative. QRP are also of this stripe. Yes, even P/pi is grounded in normativity, I would claim. It is not just another number. It is a very special number, and its singularity is ultimately a matter of judgment and perspective, embedded in the depth and coherence of mathematics. Atoms are the manifestation of QRP when projected onto space and time, which in their turn may also be seen as projections. The normativity of space and time has been widely noted, particularly with regard to time.
Our concern for the reality of atoms could be extended to the reality of bytes, letters, etc. There is a similar contextuality and normativity. Misplaced bytes and atoms are of dubious ontic status. Consider the rise and fall of 'sense data', or the status of a stray neural firing. Can signal noise be parsed with any effect? Substance is holistic or nothing. It is relational. We don't have a good handle on the glue. We can't put a finger on it. All substance is ultimately subjective. There is a genealogy of substance that is entangled with that of the self. Analysis requires effort and infrastructure. It is not natural. There is a story of atoms. We live that story, and their substance is entangled with it and us. Does this explain solar neutrinos and the other exotica of science? All of that is a spin-off of the functional core of phenomenology and QRP. Does any of this help us to reconstruct the Creation scenario?
One does find seashells by the seashore. Are they misplaced? What is their ontic status? Some are valuable and wind up in collections. They may become currency, wampum, having a social metabolic function. Otherwise, like fallen leaves, they are cycled back into the earth where we all end up, more or less. Each one of us can become a stray sheep, without a shepherd. But can we? Can anything? Truly? Consider the fractal and apokatastasis. Can there be any leftovers? Between cycles there is a no-man's land. Or is it? There are typos and there are spell-checkers. There are culture clashes. Terrorists get caught in the middle. In ecology, the carcasses pile up. Detritus. If oxygen gets too high, fires bring it back down.
Is it not possible that we are having experiences that will not be apotheosized or restituted? Some experiences take on greater portent than others. There is repetition. Will we be able to point to waste? I am skeptical that it will be a lasting issue. By creating new contexts, we create new experiences, be they social or technical in nature. The Internet is a case in point.
How did the starry sky get filled? Partly by fractal, partly by coherence. Did it ever have a different look? Who shaped the Andromeda galaxy, or Orion? There may have been various final causes that were over-determining the shape of the heavens, not the least of which were zodiacal. Z could have been a component of a Lamarckian J-Pc.
The Alpha need not be jumpstarted. It is lost in the mists of time. At some point history merges into the J-Pc, and J-Pc has an eternal component as discusses on 12/3. It is a nexus and highest common denominator of our consensual imagination. It may be fleshed out with our dreams.
We have to keep looking for gaps in the BPW, and hope that in filling them we don't have to make gross adjustments. At some point there will be sufficient confidence in the model to enable a divestiture. The least integrated facet at this point is the numerical. This is surprising for an immaterial model. Their provenance remains obscure. Their appearance in mathematical physics is exotic. With computers, they become more functional. Perhaps, though, it is in combinatorics that numbers and symmetries find their most natural home. It is on the atomic level that these symmetries become the most robust. Numbers and atoms are mutually reified, and somehow our minds partake of same. We don't yet have an observer principle for math. Our minds are combinatoric machines relative to thoughts. Our intuitions of the MG and the Ramanujan phenomenon go far beyond the basics. An axis mundi must be involved. If there were to be a breakthrough, this would be a likely venue. There must be a strong connection between the observer and anthropic principles. That connection may be the basis of substance. It is the Q that comes in here. It is the connection between micro and macro. Music and aesthetics may be involved here.
The organicity of the numerical coincidences is our best pointer, but to what end? Where would we be without numbers, or without their coincidences? Where would we be without Mozart, or without the Golay code and the Monster? The geometry of all the sporadic groups is based on that of the Leech lattice, or optimal packing in 24 dimensions. We might link mathematics to aesthetics, but then what is the function of aesthetics in the BPW? Why music? It has an abstract coherence like math. Why abstractions? Why words? They have to do with the combinatorics. This is where music comes in: combinatorial coherence and aesthetics. Aesthetics must be an aspect of love and of normativity. Consider synaesthesia, poetry, abstract vs. representational art, color vision, rhetoric. Why then does this have to show up in the quantum domain in the form of math. What is the linkage between the several aspects of math?
It would seem that between aesthetics and anthropics, the math structures would be overdetermined. How can we arrange for both to be fulfilled? Somehow there has to be a link. Where could that be? And how does the epistemology work? The episteme comes from the same place that our spatial perception comes. This may speak to the proprioceptive construct that is space. Aesthetics must be closely related to coherence, which is alignment between micro and macro cosms. Science provides a sub-alignment. This may be a spinorial/relational view of space. This may be where the virtual pokatok model runs into trouble. It assumes a perceptible space. The zodiac then is a kind of pre-space, or a projective pre-geometry, which then gets cloned according to some proto-symmetries. What is the primal spinor? What is its psychic basis? It must have to do with the dyadic dialectic. The dialectic must be multidimensional. That is a trick. The zodiac is an expanding spin-net that becomes space. What is the basis of orientation, the primordial dimension or polarity? Then we need a pokatok for spinors. It sounds like foosball! Yin-yang could be a primal dyad, but how do we get from the qualitative to quantitative dimensions. By way of numerology? Hasn't this been worked out somewhere?