Quaternions

[jody2.718]

Thanks, it was interesting. Yanofski's version of universal chaos reminds me of Chaitin's "algorithmic complexity."

Chaitin's style is more egotistical and fun, though. Even if you don't get the math you can still enjoy Chaitin's antics and literary

pretensions. Yanofski's indictment of physicists for their dependence on the idea of symmetry is, I think, on the money

But he doesn't take it quite far enough for me. The anti-logical conclusion of such a notion would be that not only

are no two things/events equal (symmetrical), except maybe by accident, but also, no thing is exactly equal to itself! Or,

"A" does not equal "A," at some fraction of a second in the future, again, except by accident. Trying to make the two versions

of "A" exactly equal would be like achieving absolute zero and would require an infinite amount of energy, violating

the Third Law of Thermodynamics. Complete asymmetry or chaos, however, would also invalidate the law of the excluded middle.

Maybe not such a bad thing.

I think a more interesting but related question than whether or not the laws of nature are selected by physicists for their

symmetry relationships, is whether or not the universe at its most fundamental level is discrete or continuous.

Here's Chaitin's book "MetaMath" courtesy of U. Texas:
https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~cannata/cs345/Class%20Notes/06%20Chaitin%20MetaMath.pdf

jody

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This article does give one a better idea of what quaternions are in its discussion of the hierarchy of number systems

among a host of other cool things, most of which I’m trying to wrap my brain around and failing

rich
http://m.nautil.us/issue/66/clockwork/chaos-makes-the-multiverse-unnecessary-rp

Sent with [ProtonMail](https://protonmail.com) Secure Email.