Quaternions

[David Morris]

Symmetry in visual arts is essentially grasping a center, and establishing
references and relationships for fields communicating across that center.
It is a basic expression of the "one" becoming "two," Duality from Unity,
(which begs the question: "Is Unity chaos?)  In "balanced" compositions,
the Center dominates.  The sides more closely mirror each other (identical
though opposite) the closer their proximity to the center. The further one
gets from the center, the more the mirror loses its power, and then new
independent expressions emerge.

Symmetry is often a mirroring of polar opposites too.  In that case the
point of symmetrical division between the two is less unifying, less
powerful, because the two opposing fields want their own unity, and aren't
trying to relate to each other across that earlier center from whence they
emerged. Thus are born new Unities. At least that's one option.

I don't know shit about higher maths, but symmetry is a very basic
metaphysical concept with deep roots in the evolution of consciousness
itself.

David Morris

On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 9:22 PM jody2.718 <jody2.718 at protonmail.com> wrote:

> 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.
> --
> Pynchon-L: https://waste.org/mailman/listinfo/pynchon-l
>