Feeds:
Posts

Maximal parsimony approach to deep structure of existence

The evidence accumulated thus far for the S4 picture seems now to include a straightforward prediction of the Lamb shift which will need more examination for observation matches.  The general S4 picture, which can be described in different ways but a central point being that quantization of energy be explained by a precisely scaled 4-sphere universe (with standard technique to add time with Lorentz invariance requirement).  There are extremely natural geometric ways of combining electromagnetism and gravity here as well of the gauge forces.  We have a large class of new testable predictions, i.e. all mathematical consequences of this model.  Some of the consequences are clear ‘from construction’ such as cosmological constant $h^2$.  Others are nontrivial such as non-$U(1)$ invariance of electromagnetism.  What I mean by ‘deep structure of existence’ is that the model implies an objective metaphysics, a purely electromagnetic macroscopic fourth space dimension. This objectively real fourth space dimension operates, according to this model, on physical laws that are known mathematically.  Four (space) dimensional phenomena are in principle open to objective examination with a fleshed out theory using mathematical methods (such as solving boundary value problems with the physical universe as the boundary of a domain in $S^4(1/h)$.  This step is a gigantic leap for science because it is an end to the division of science and magic which began the journey of exact sciences.  Impressive advances in empirical viewpoint such as the myelin theory of talent still face some difficult questions at their roots.  For example, the clean myelin theory says that certain molecules react to circuits of neurons firing (during ‘deep practice’) with myelin insulation.  Our abilities to fire certain neural circuits by this sort of mode of ‘deep practice’ then contains the substance of association with talent.  Although it is entirely much too premature to attempt to predict what sort of precise quantitative or qualitative models can become available for objective metaphysics it seems fairly clear that quantitative models are viable for such efforts.  A wiser man than I would perhaps follow tradition and keep strictly to empiricist views and banish metaphysics from science but this a key impetus for S4 physics.  One expects that many of the fundamental questions of physics to be technically tractable because of the simplicity of S4 while many new difficulties appear from the expanded vision of existence.  We would want to check for accuracy of predictions for such things as magnetic moments but we also want to understand whether a four dimensional universe can give us any insight towards things like Jung’s ‘collective unconscious’.  Maximal parsimony approach is a tractable guide to reach this far.

A died-in-the-wool empiricist would of course attempt to dismiss four space dimensions but he or she would then be throwing away the baby with the bathwater.  Myelin type theories have appeal for providing some universal concrete answers to previously difficult and nebulous questions about human nature but these efforts (as important as they are) will only delay the inevitable questions regarding objective metaphysics.  Indeed one can see in the intellectual development of twentieth century science this controversy just below the surface.

I want to illustrate the substance of the issue that I raise by the following.  Let’s take the myelin type talent theory and consider the very famous soliloquy of Hamlet.  So by the myelin theory, Shakespeare had perfected a large number of the myelinated circuits of neural paths to produce the following:

```For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
The insolence of office and the spurns
That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
When he himself might his quietus make
With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
But that the dread of something after death,
The undiscover'd country from whose bour
No traveller returns, puzzles the will
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?```

There is the following type of problem with with myelin theory in this case. One can accept as extremely reasonable that myelin circuits had been forming in Shakespeare’s brain on the path to this extreme insight into the noble heart of man. But how did he actually reach this point? If it was ‘deep practice’ that reached this point, then deep practice of what content, where? In the brilliant universality of an empiricist theory like myelin, excellence in talent in well-defined endeavours such as soccer, math or music is explained reasonably well but I think the ‘what’ is still quite open. There is a great deal of room for explanations of content of talent especially in art through establishment of objective metaphysics (specifically through the S4 picture which focuses attention on ensuring empirical physical accuracy and interpretation first).