Comment on this article |
Email this article |
Free speech, the properties of language (including its limitations), and creativity
by martin concoyle
Email: martinconcoyle (nospam) hotmail.com
18 Dec 2010
This is a succinct over-view of what equality, free inquiry, freedom to believe, freedom of expression, and their relation to the freedom to create (where creativity is best done in a selfless context) means in regard to identifying “what knowledge is,” and relating knowledge to human creativity in a wide ranging and very useful context, in regard to life’s relation to the creativity-existence duality, as opposed to the western spirit-materialism duality. The newly modeled existence is multi-dimensional, and thus the new existence is much deeper than the (confining) idea of materialism.
That is, putting the context of descriptive knowledge…, (which is related to observable (measurable) properties of material) in regard to a description of the observed properties of existence…, so as to relate the patterns of existence to creativity, in a wide ranging and very useful context, including the creative capabilities of life, guided by a valid description of existence.
How can professional math-scientists express authoritarian professional belief structures which are no different from an authoritarian religious belief structure, if their knowledge is not related to practical creativity?
That is, in western culture, “the spirit” (or religion) is associated to “a truth” which has no relation to practical creativity, yet today the expression of math-science truths, ie abstract truths (related to materialism), have exactly the same practically-useless relation to “truth” as does western religion.
In fact, the main obstacle to expressing new math-science ideas (which are in opposition to [or which challenge the validity of] the current “religion” of math-science and materialism) is the universal public reverence and faith, ie (blind) religious belief, in the high-value of our society’s math-science knowledge, and the cloistered community of its faithful (exclusive high priests) who are protected from other ideas by an elaborate gate-keeping structure, ie the faithful community of scientists and mathematicians, who are faithful to an authoritarian, narrow range of expressed ideas (ie a narrow set of ideas which serve both powerful selfish interests and the hallowed traditions of math which was set-down by the mathematical masters, but these masters were also supported by narrow social interests).
Without equality, freedom of belief, and free speech then a set of abstract Platonic truths associated to (the iconic high-value of) math-science can (has) become the basis of a state sponsored religion.
The essentials of the revered “narrow structures of thought”
The large sets defined by apparent random structures of quantum physics…
(but the function spaces which are attached to these random structures…., by harmonic function approximations to an outline (or a skeletal structure of) geometric, or energetic, structures of a physical quantum system (the principles of quantum physics)…. are attached to incorrectly defined random sets associated to random particle-spectral events (or points) in the space within which a quantum system is contained)
…. cannot be related to the actual order which exists on the stable discrete quantum systems.
These highly ordered quantum systems form the boundary (of [the points in] space) of such random sets, ie where the highly ordered quantum systems are the stable…
: nuclear, (general) atomic, molecular, or crystalline systems, or as to “what set of elementary particles” (or arbitrary parameters) determines their “stable” structures,
… but the stability of these systems cannot be identified within the descriptive framework of the (supposed) ocean of randomness upon which quantum principles are based.
Furthermore, the many (large sets of) non-linear interactions which are a part of the descriptive structures of both classical physics and particle physics, and general relativity, where “non-linear general relativity” is ineffective to the point of it (also) being nonsense (though such a pleasingly simple idea).
Descriptions of either interactions (eg driven [eg by electrical voltage sources]), or the natural structure of relatively stable classical physical (material) systems, if solvable, depends on metric-invariance, linearity, and separable geometric properties (and at most two-bodies) to be a part of the solvable descriptive structure.
Indeed the stability of the (many-bodied) solar system goes without an adequate relation to a causal description.
However, the implication of a non-linearity (which is implied by a many-bodied system such as the solar system), in turn, implies the instability of such a system.
The many-body problem in quantum physics also goes without a valid description, eg general atomic systems.
Such many-body quantum systems are placed in a statistical-energy structure of component occupation of Bose-Fermion components within an vaguely defined quantum system of discrete energy levels, eg most often defined by the (quantum infinite potential) box within which the (statistical) thermal system is contained.
The universal model of all material interactions is (now) being modeled as an elementary particle-collision and (hidden) set of particle-state (unitary) transformations…, ie supposedly unitary transformations preserve (or leave invariant) the energy structure of a quantum system…,of material-particle interactions, attached to “a non-linear (unitary) connection” which in turn, is related to a linearly defined harmonic wave-function.
This makes the descriptive structure of quantum physics improperly defined in relation to both randomness and relative (energy) stability. That is, quantum systems are placed into a fundamentally random (due to a non-linearity connection) as well as a random particle-collision structure….
[which defines a very large set which cannot be properly related to the linear wave-function…, to which this particle-collision process is supposed to be a part]
…. but whose relation to existing stable properties, ie discrete energy levels of quantum systems, is essentially non-existent (cannot be taken seriously).
Yet it is claimed that “stable discreteness of quantum systems” is related to randomness, and this relation is “established” (forced into being) by a “data-fitting epicycle structure,” which rather than describing a useful structure (for fitting data), shows the problems which large sets (and which are also improperly defined elementary event spaces for probability descriptions) have in regard to determining a useful descriptive language.
These large improperly defined sets are prevalent in math.
In regard to probability, one needs to be able to identify and count stable events, such as the faces on a cube, with numbers carved on the faces, in order to have a properly defined probability description based on a well defined elementary event space.
It is not clear that convergences, which are defined on very large sets….
eg sets with only a structure of abstract randomness, ie not necessarily either countable or stable events, and on sets where it takes more than an infinite amount of information to identify an element of the (very large) set, eg this is a property of the real numbers (as identified by G Chaitin),
…. have any meaning, so that (on such very large sets) suggestive language can guide the meaning of the value (or set) (or the property) which the convergence identifies.
That is, on very large sets, suggestive language can be used to guide the meaning (or interpretation) of the set within which the convergence is defined.
This is about the meaning and properties of language.
Platonic truths, ie truths based on agreements about a specific limitation of language, “what language means,” and “how it is to be used?” Even if the language is mathematical, the language can still be describing illusions.” Even if the descriptions are measurable verified the language can still be describing illusions, eg Ptolemy’s universe vs. the universe of Copernicus. Note: Ptolemy’s description is both mathematically modeled, and measurably verified, yet the Ptolemaic description is an illusion.
This situation, in which the fundamental (relatively stable) properties of physical systems cannot be described in a useful manner, can be resolved by very simple math structures.
However, these (newly related) math structures are (now) placed in a context which is much simpler than the contexts in which they appear in both professional math and physics, ie where professional means those who work for oligarchical interests.
In the US society, both society and its (collective) knowledge are partitioned and organized in regard to oligarchic authoritarian institutional structures which define institutional relations and competitions (which determine institutional positions). A professional must cultivate their good reputation so as to get a job with their pay-master.
In regard to the art of drawing and painting, or determining images on surfaces, narrow professional disciplines are defined, and then “broken away” from. Math and science are no different from art, except that math-science are an integral part of the power of the oligarchical institutional structures which partition our society, in regard to both material creativity, and keeping the knowledge needed for material creativity remote from the public.
To break away
The new context for math used in the description of existence, is:
Geometrically separable, and
This is a relatively small set, and can be placed into a relatively smaller set, which, if it is given a “self-referential” structure (or equivalently, determining a spectrally consistent set, by means of resonance throughout the containing set), then it perhaps is a manageably small (set).
Furthermore, the set of (possible) changes, which is bounded by relatively stable systems…
(which, in turn, are in resonance with the (full) containing space) and, in particular, the set of possible changes of existing relatively stable systems,
….can be partitioned into discretely changing, separable geometries (in relation to a set of changes, which have differences which determine very “small sized” changes) which identify (in higher dimensions, as well as in the dimension of material containment) the structure of material interactions.
These interactions can move, in a “relatively smooth” manner, into the bounding sets (due to properties of both resonance and the correct energy range for the interaction) of relatively stable systems.
The interactions either separate interacting material, or they result in a new (relatively) stable discrete system, so that in either case the systems have stable discrete properties.
These separate discrete systems can also be formed into accumulations of many very small separable systems (ie the atomic hypothesis), so that these accumulated systems can also have a larger sized “separable system” also associated to themselves, so that this larger sized system can adhere to (or are consistent with) both the atomic structures and the crystalline structures.
The Bose or Fermion properties of a system’s components (or a system) are determined by the “relative dimension” of the system, or component, which is being described, where the “relative dimension” is the dimension of the system and/or the dimension of the metric-space within which the system is being described.
This new descriptive structure is a set which is linked to several descriptive structures.
For example it is linked to classical physics whose context is metric-invariance, so that the solvable part of a classical description is linear and built out of separable geometries (which is the solvable part of the classical description).
It provides a new context for the “one” solvable problem in general relativity, ie the one-body spherically symmetric geometry ie a separable geometry, but spherical symmetry does not extend down to the system’s (small and large) material structure, (Note: Though metric-invariance is lost in general relativity).
It contains, within its many-dimensional, self-referential system, the properties of quantum systems, such as nuclei, (general) atoms, molecules, and crystals, including explaining the apparent randomness of quantum physics.
That is, the new description requires that stable, separable, discrete geometries form which possess the spectral properties of these stable discrete systems, and this can occur for many size-scales. That is, in this new descriptive language quantum randomness is a derived property, not a fundamental property. Stable discrete geometries bound the large set of dynamic possibilities, and the dynamic description is partitioned into short-lived discrete separable structures so that most of the dynamic structures are not stable.
It identifies a context of “material geometry independence,” which can exist between different dimensional levels of the many-dimensional containment structure of existence.
Discrete, separable geometries (or space-forms) are a main part of W Thurston’s topological classification of geometries.
In regard to geometric classification, the question with which math needs to deal, is the issue of “useful relevance of the other geometries, which are a part of an abstract (or some abstract) grand category of geometry.”
Discrete, separable geometries are a part of the sets (or descriptions) of “automorphic forms,” of which the separable, real geometries are a very small set (relatively speaking).
Math places this relatively simple, small (math) set (identified above as a new category) into (other) very large sets, where the relation of these large sets to valid (practical, useful) descriptive structures of [material] existence…..,
which actually has a relation to creativity, not simply related to “measurable verification,” as Ptolemy’s descriptions, though illusions, were measurably verified
…, does not exist.
The resistance of mathematicians to new definitions of categories, and to new mathematical contexts cannot be defended on any basis in logic, or reason. It is simply based on the “worship of personalities,” ie the subjectively proclaimed masters of mathematics, and a dogmatic adherence to traditions.
The interest by (of) mathematicians in vast abstract structures, needs to be challenged at it fundamental levels of “quantitative consistency” and “validity of definition” …. such as properly defined probability elementary event spaces, as well as the quantitatively inconsistent structures of non-linearity. Is the descriptive context capable of describing the fundamental material stability which dominates most of our experience? And most significantly, it (math) needs to be questioned, “if a description contributes to (practical) creative inventions?”
If a math description does not contribute to (practical) creative inventions, then the main problem for mathematicians is to invent new contexts and new categories within which new types of abstract patterns can be explored.
Does the quantitative structure make any sense?
Is a quantitative description based on a quantitatively consistent set structure?
Is a quantitative description based on non-linearity, which is being fit into a quantitatively inconsistent set structure?
An interest in math abstractions which are defined on very large sets…, whose elements, though grouped together by a set definition (or a defining category properties), are not necessarily a part of a descriptive structure which can be related to great usefulness…., may not be a “useful” interest to have.
On the other hand, the simple…: metric-invariant, geometrically separable, linear, many-dimensional structure…, can be associated to the classical differential equations, which identify the solvable, and relatively useful aspect of classical physics (as opposed to the non-linear part of classical physics), ie virtually all of technical development of our society is still related to solvable classical equations of physical systems. Because this is true, then there does not need to be any other need to justify these new math patterns, since classical physics is the dominant part of math which is very useful, and very relevant to creativity. Thus, it provides a new context for the descriptions of classical physics.
There is a vast set of abstractions which can be explored in the:
spin-rotation of metric-space-states,
(new) category in math.
The property of a high dimensional discreteness can be used to define, both different dimensional levels of existence, as well as an over-all self-referential (or inter-resonating) containing set, which has both a dimensional-bound (due to math patterns identified by D Coxeter), and a set of natural oscillating energy-generating types of high-dimension space-forms (or discrete separable geometries, of odd-dimension) contained within itself.
Furthermore, in this new descriptive basis (or new descriptive category) there is both a property of descriptive continuity…. (particle physics does not possess this property), ie the conservation rules (eg the conservation of energy, and the conservation of mass)…., and the fundamental geometries, which it both contains and of which it is composed, are separable and smooth.
Descriptive continuity is essentially the result of the existence of a space-form structure for the (our) containing metric-space. Thus, in Euclidean space this could be a 3-dimensional space-form (a 3-torus), or it could be a stable 3-flow on a 4-dimensional space-form. The fact that the (a ) containing metric-space has a bounded geometric structure (of its own) implies that there will be (material) geometric independence between adjacent dimensional levels, of the over-all high-dimension containing space.
Along with the property of descriptive continuity, which induces the math structure needed to define a calculus, the discrete partitions of the interaction structure are also small enough (can be made small enough) to support the structures of calculus, and smooth, separable geometric structures.
High dimension, oscillating, energy-generating space-forms are elementary models of life. These above listed structures naturally fit onto a principle fiber bundle, where the maximal tori….,
of the natural unitary group local coordinate transformations of metric-spaces, which are placed into a context in which metric-spaces have pairs of (opposite) states associated to themselves (needed for the discrete spatial displacements of dynamics), and which also need to be spin-rotated between these metric-space states (needed in the dynamic process)
…., can be used to both define spectral resonances within the over-all high-dimensional containing space, and these resonances can be used to identify a simple model of a mind associated to a limited oscillating subset, which is contained within the over-all space.
The relation of the professionals to irrelevance
The adherence to abstractions defined on very large sets (or which define very large sets), so that these sets are without abstract patterns which can be associated to some aspect of “real” measurable (or quantitative) structures which are also related to practical development, needs to be a basis for a strong criticism of such abstract academic thinking.
If math patterns are placed in a measuring context directly associated to a useful description, as the new category (mentioned above) is so related, then “the more realistic context” (though no less abstract) needs to be given voice.
That is, the voice of free inquiry (especially if expressing a new idea) needs to be given authority, especially if the math patterns, which are currently being given authority (in professional journals), are not related to widely applicable, practical usefulness. Furthermore, in probability descriptions, one needs to be critical as to whether the properties of the events (or elements) which identify an elementary event space, in fact, determine a valid probability space, these properties are pretty simple (elementary), and an example of a valid elementary event space would be, the numbered faces of a properly shaped cube, which one throws to identify the random events of the numbers on the cube’s top face. Being either a republican or a democrat is not a valid elementary event space since a person can change their minds as the samples are taken, thus it is not clear that “counting the properties of events” is well defined in such an elementary event space.
The experts claim to have a deep relation between their descriptive knowledge and creativity, but in fact, there is virtually no manifestation (or widely appearing examples) of this claim, in the practical technical context (ie non-linearity and improperly defined probability descriptions, are having very little effect on the development of practical technology).
However, the public relations machine, ie the media and education system, hype “the depth of understanding which is possessed by the math-science experts,” (the truth brought down from the mountain by our hyper-smart experts, or the irrelevant “truth” brought down from a pile of baloney by our [obedient] experts who serve their pay-masters, but who are in turn worshipped by the public) but “other than ‘codes’ to protect secrets” (nearly) all of the descriptive structures currently being published in professional math-science journals (which are not related to the math structures of classical physics) are irrelevant to our “local” properties of existence, ie useful descriptions relevant to both our (practical) local (or controllable) size-scale, and to our current “point of time.”
To then make the claim that this “knowledge of irrelevance” “will be important in the future”…, can fool the over-hyped public, who have been taught to respond to icons of value, which are dished-out to them by the media,…. is a great misrepresentation of what “it is” that we actually know.
This claim, for our present knowledge to have an important link to future knowledge, has essentially the same information content, within itself, as the religious claims of “heaven or hell,” or the “coming of a new prophet” or “the coming of a cataclysmic change on earth of a religious nature.”
It is clearly the claims of charlatans, (It was claimed in 1950 that our society would have fusion-energy by 1955).
That is, “To the experts,”
“either put-up, or allow other voices (or other new ideas) to be expressed”… about a new descriptive context (or many new descriptive contexts, whose language structure is substantially different from the ideas which are currently being given too much authority)…. for a (new) more useful science-math truth.
The precious rigor of mathematicians has very little meaning, whereas new contexts of precise descriptions which foster creativity are more meaningful to humans.
This is an example of how (educational) administrators (or gate-keepers) are the prime instigators of:
making education a part of the media, and
the destruction of education (making it a vocational school for corporations), and
the destruction of free inquiry, and
subsequently the destruction of knowledge.
Education needs to be based on equality, free inquiry (which must be associated to the individual authority of the inquiry, so that the integrity of each person is the gate-keeping mechanism) and (based on) the relation of a useful knowledge to creativity (a relation which demands honesty).
As it now is, one can either compete in an education system to help the oligarchy in its (important) creations (the “pompous grandiosity” of expert professionals is granted to them by the oligarchy, and in math and science it blinds them to the purpose of math and science), or one can be a clown of some sort: being a criminal, or being an entertainer, or being in porn, or (the lowest pay-scale, but quietest position) being a worker.
This work is in the public domain