little ? for amara' The total solution of the N-body problem, for all possible initial conditions, can be comprehended rigorously in a rather Godlike or omniscient overview, by formulation as the flow of an incompressible fluid in a (6N - 10)-dimensional “phase space” or state space. Here each stationary streamline represents the entire motion of an N-body planetary configuration. (Each planet, idealized as a Newtonian point-particle, requires 3 coordinates of position and 3 coordinates of velocity to specify its current state, so N particles require 6N coordinates to specify their complete state; but the 10 integrals of Conservation of Energy and of Conservation of Angular Momentum reduce the 6N dimensional state-space by 10 dimensions.) For N = 10, (6N - 10) = 50. Hence we must consider a stationary incompressible flow in a 50-dimensional state-space. [Astronomer, Robert Bass, in Kronos, 1:3, 1975, arguing as to why Velikovsky's thesis on planetary volcanism must be taken seriously: kronia.com ]
I draw your attention to the statement of Bass: “Here each stationary streamline represents the entire motion of an N-body planetary configuration”. (Emphasis added.) This statement captures much more accurately the sense of a Platonic Idea, an archetype, than does the notion of a “perfect tree” offered by Revel. The “perfect tree” interpretation is the academic philosophy version taught in every Intro Course since Abélard took Héloise over his knee -- taught, that is, by academics who have not seriously studied neo-platonic thought, the medieval alchemy and Masonry it gave rise to, or the corpus of relevant esoteric theosophical literature derivative of the Hindu take on “the general case of general cases”, which is an early version of the “set of all sets, including itself”. (A good place to look concerning this is Sri Aurobindo's Plato and Vedic Idealism, written early in the 20th century by this Raj-born Cambridge-trained scholar of classical Greek. The larger issue is whether or not the texts attributed to Plato could have been translated properly by someone still staring at shadows on the wall of the cave, i.e., particular entities in the “objective world”.) The Bass quotation starts off noting “all possible initial conditions”, which does not refer to any particular case, but to the general case. The “entire motion” is the complete 4-dimensional spacetime path (past, present, and future) of the N-body configuration in question. An “N-body configuration” is not a particular entity; it is not an individual body. It is an N-body; it is n-identity-transparent-bodies in configuration space (depicted in Timæus: this “mothering space” which is hardly real, Hylê, purely indeterminate matter, the recipient matrix of nature); it is a “general entity”, an archetype. An N-body does not exist at a particular occasion; but at a collective occasion: it is a collective occasion of experience. This “entire motion” in ponderable spacetime of a collective occasion of experience (“the music of the spheres”) is a “stationary streamline” in the Godlike 50-dimensional state-space. The stationary streamline is one of the lines/edges constituting Plato's regular polyhedra, which metaphorically represent “Divine Ideas” (see Proclus, Introduction to Books II and III of Plato’s Republic, as well as the great works of Cambridge Platonist Thomas Taylor). A particular “maze” of interfused regular polyhedra metaphorically represents a cosmos of collective occasions corresponding to a given set of the set all sets of possible initial conditions, including itself. Thus, is motion of the music of the spheres frozen in a stationary architecture -- to paraphrase Goethe (oops! Frederich Schlegel, “Architecture is frozen music,” as quoted by Hartley Burr Alexander, Nature and Human Nature) and reveal the Masonic core of metareference designed into medieval cathedrals, leaded glass windows, and plainsong chant. The angels sitting on the head of a pin were not particular entities; they were general entities: therefore, angels.
The obvious question to ask is: Is an N-body boson configuration a collection of discrete entities or is it a general entity? Is there such a thing actually possible as an N-body boson configuration not in Bose-Einstein condensation? The authors of “(De)Constructing Dimensions” describe a “…fifth dimension, dynamically generated by a different set of interactions and with a different set of gauge bosons.” They ask the question:
What is a fifth dimension? Mathematically, any set of ordered points can be called a “dimension”, but physically we need more. Particles should be able to move in the extra dimension; that is, they should carry labels, their coordinates in the fifth dimension, that change as they move in the fifth dimension. Furthermore, there should be a physical notion of locality in the extra dimension. This translates into the requirement of locality for the interactions in the theory. Particles with the same labels have the largest interaction, while particles with very different labels should interact only weakly.
How, why, and wherefore is it so that the activities of the elementary particles that create the dimension of the space transpire within the dimension thus created by those very activities? Is this element of self-reference an attribute of space itself; does it reflect on the subjective experience/needs of the physicist; does it tell us something fundamental about the nature of time? And where does the “Furthermore…should…” come from? No reason is given for the furthermore/should properties of the extra dimension: they are like self-evident truths of what “physically we need” . Judgement as to what “physically we need” is based upon the sensory experience of the scientist, his sensory experience under normal sensory load -- not at sensory overload or in sensory isolation. Are the very properties of space itself to be judged exclusively on the basis of normal-load percepts? In fact, there appears to be no “physical notion of locality” under sensory overload, as the Los Alamos studies of pilot fixation syndrome clearly suggest. There also appears to be no “physical notion of locality” in sensory isolation, as the research of John C. Lilly, M.D., has clearly suggested. Deconstuctionist physics supposedly studies origins of spatial dimensions back at a supposed beginning of the universe in conformance to a post-modernist experimentalist orientation designed to keep the classical limit intact and quantum-relativity theory as far away from everyday life as possible. What would happen to what psychologically we need if Bose-Einstein condensation was allowed to affect the cognitive sciences, for instance? In order not to find out, physicists long ago learned to carry a mantra: “There is no such thing as a collective occasion of experience. There is no such thing as a collective occasion of experience. There is no such thing as a collective occasion of experience…” Please note: “Particles with the same labels have the largest interaction…” Am I crazy to think this bizarre? Is it not bizarre to call identity transparency “largest interaction”? so as to maintain pretension of distinction even in the unary. |
