Levitating With Math

ROMNEY:  I will go with Romney and see if I can help cheer him to the task.
.
CHAOS:  As for chaos:  Is that which manifests out of chaos determined by purely quantitative equations for mixes of Nature, or by a mathematically-conserved reconciliation among qualitative perspectives of Character? To me, the notion of chaos implicates an aspect of unpredictability, yet also of appreciative anticipation.
.
NATURE OF MEASURABLE SUBSTANCE:  No one knows, or has even been able to model or define, a system of terms for purely physical "things" upon which math can operate, which is complete, coherent, and consistent. Take any term to which math is applied, whether it be: real particle, virtual particle, fermion, boson, photon, electron, positron, graviton, matter, energy, mass, information, conservation, dimension, relative direction, relative spin, angular momentum, space, time, curvature, force, attraction, repulsion, neutrality, relative radiation, relative station, point, length, width, depth, sequence, overlap, vector, charge, spin, orbit, roll, relative orbit, clockwise to roll, counterclockwise to roll, polarity, entanglement, wave frequency, wave length, wave amplitude, wave intensity, wave vibration, reinforcement, exclusion, annihilation, direct current, alternating current, order, disorder, expansion, contraction, steady state, discrete, continuous, re-normalization, etc.
.
PRACTICAL TINKERING:  For each term, we have no definition that is complete, coherent, or consistent to any single model or system of thought. For example, all of matter, energy, space, and time may be conceptualized in respect of a system of discrete and continuous spins, orbits, and rolls. Yet we have no way to know, define, or limit that which is being spun, orbited, or rolled, nor that which is doing the spinning, orbiting, and rolling. Inside each spin, there abides no substance apart from spins transitioning within spins. EVEN SO, WE ARE ABLE TO TINKER ALONG WITH OUR PRACTICAL DERIVATIONS AND APPLICATIONS OF MATHEMATICAL RELATIONSHIPS!
.
QUALITY OF THINGS:  In other words, we can usefully derive and apply mathematical equations and relationships without needing to know or believe that there are any "things-in-themselves" (or ultimate particles) to which such math is being applied. Rather, experience of practical application and intuition indicates that Math plus SOME QUALITY (which is not in itself quantitatively definable), is all that is needed in order for us to spin out our lives and applications and to leverage our inventions.
.
ADOPTION OF UNIVERSALLY COMMON THING, PARTICLE, SUBSTANCE, SPIN, GEOMETRY, OR MATH:  This is what leads me to believe that the principle by which mass is transferred is not ultimately related to any particular particle or thing in itself, but instead to an algorithm that is adopted and applied to our universe of qualitatively shared experience. That algorithm will apply regardless of regress of spin.  We act and apply our math AS IF there abide real physical things, yet the ultimate basis for signifying and tracing our interfunctioning seems to abide in respect of communications among particularized perspectives that, in themselves, are derivative of an attraction between the qualitative and an algorithm.
.
NATURE V. CHARACTER:  Battles among political and social moralists seem to relate to intuitions and interpretations regarding what is or should be the character of that qualitative.  I think those battles participate in defining chaos, but I don't think one can avoid such battles by deferring to chaos.
.
*************************
.

SENSE AND NO-SENSE:  There is no sense, spin, representation, or conservation to be spun, represented, or conserved without a system-imposed capacity to sense, spin, represent, and conserve.

.

CROSS SPINNING FORMS:  Imagine a holistic system that entails a form shaped like a circular string in space, with a cylindrical tube in motion around it, which, on closer inspection, shows to consist of a flurry of alternating strings, circulating in opposing directions, away from the center versus towards the center. What would conserve and guide such a system?
.
UNIVERSAL FIELD:  Moreover, suppose the cylindrical tube itself is in a spin-orbit-roll:  Would not that associate with a common field throughout the tube, a sort of universal field?  Would not such field express counter-part particles, associated with a most fundamental spin-particle?  Would not such a fundamental particle manifest standard, relational-transitional properties?
.
UNIVERSAL DRAG, INERTIA, GRAVITY, MASS:  Would not spin-drag and cross-rotation associate with continuous and discrete spatial variations and sequential lags in local expressions and representations of expressions?  Thus, it would seem that no local model or map of space-time geometry could reliably, precisely, completely coordinate with local territory in all respects.

.

UNIVERSE IN CLASS OF ITSELF AS LIVING GEOMETRY:  Yet, there would seem to be no sense to be sensed, without a holistic system of geometry that mathematically reconciles principles for conserving and transitioning geometries for (1) forms being spun, (2) forms associated with the doing of spin, and (3) perspectives of forms representing and sensing forms being spun.  Yet, such reconciliation seems beyond complete decipher to the partial perspective of any mortal.  Is the geometry of the Holism a kind of "living math," i.e., a class of itself, being the only class that can possibly understand its math?

.
SEPARATION IN APPEARANCES OF SIGNIFICATIONS:  The appearance of local variations in geometry is necessary in order to avail separation in perspectives of consciousness.

.

INCOMPLETENESS OF EVERY LOCAL PERSPECTIVE:  Differences in relative angular spin can represent local geometries of direction, curvature, reinforcement, attraction, exclusion, repulsion, annihilation, relative radiation, relative station. Each local part and property of spin is a (incomplete?) representation of a conserving and guiding reconciliation of the whole system. Each local and particular spin within the systemic geometry is simultaneously (1) an expression of its separateness and (2) a (incomplete?) representation of its systemic sponsor. Whether it is alternatively sensed as particle or representation depends on perspective and purpose.  As local particle, it can be quantitatively measured.  As holistic representation, it can be (incompletely) qualitatively appreciated.  Regardless, some aspect of the system itself asserts capacity to factor it, both quantitatively and qualitatively.

.
********************
.
FUNDAMENTAL PARTICLE:  Does the universe, as a class or field of itself, define a fundamental particle to which the math of geometry can be applied, even by mortals, to derive how the universe traces and spins out its paths and relations?

.

DARK SUBSTANCE:  Is the qualitative "thing" that is spinning or being spun Dark Substance? Does it fill, occupy, or guide all spin, so that it reconciles and evolves layers of spin within spin, overlapping and crossing with crosses of spin?

.

ITERATIVE SPIN LAG:  Does spin lag set up varying iterations, layers, levels, and cross overlaps of competing species of fields, spins, and sub-spins, which average to take on characteristics of one another, until some (or one) come to overpower all neighbors and blow them to singular or relative insignificance?  A mother universe need not disappear to make way for a singular new universe.  It only need be blown into relative insignificance or dark immeasurability.  Once black holes are twisted to agglomerate within a system, they could consume and spit out new universes, from which the laws of our universe would be measurable only in dark, indirect, aggregate.  The dark substance of our universe may be the remnant effects of our having previously been consumed by a black hole.

.
*********************
.
POTENTIAL:  Of every spin that is manifested, traced, and focused to be perceived (represented, sequenced, and recorded), there is potential for mathematical measure. That measure will correlate with the situational capacity for the spin to be perceived. No correlation will ever avail a mortal’s perception of zero spin, because no zero spin is perceptible. Math that correlates with measurable spin will never avail cancellation of infinities to measure a “thing” precisely at zero. Finding zero to measure is not the same as measuring a zero. Parts of space-time may appear to be quantitatively empty, but they are not devoid of qualitative potency.
.
CORRELATIVE RELATIONS:  Some property of the relation (dance of feedback?) between spin and perception requires that parts appear AS IF they were “things” to be spun, even though there is no-thing that is measurable within each spin — except more spin. No method of measure ever completes a purpose of a mortal to measure the “ultimate fundamental thing.” That which is experience-able suggests this is because the ultimate thing is not quantitative, but qualitative.
.
MARKER:  Yet, without reference to some “marker” (fundament) of what is being spun, a mortal cannot conceive of a measurable spin about a point, axis, string, or additional spin. So, WHAT “completes” that marker? Is what is being spun “just” another spin within more spins, or is it meta-idealization, some kind of living math, or some participatory entity that is spinning and/or being spun, which is some-meta-how in a “class of itself”? Is it itself quantitatively measurable, or is it only qualitatively experience-able?
.
HOW:  How does the Fundament guide or determine such traces, signs, and significations of its participation which are measurable? Well, we don’t know. Yet, we somehow participate in a dance of qualitatively appreciative feedback. What a thinking human being means by “moral” pertains to how we interpret what we should appreciate. Morality implicates thinking, judging, choosing, i.e., taking ownership and responsibility for oneself. It does NOT implicate sub-human adoption of a permanent policy of leaving such determinations to one’s pretended betters, messengers, or conniving mobsters (“community organizers” and “free-trading-crony-corporatists).
.
HIAWATHA INSIDE-OUTSIDE:  Thinking about what lies deepest "inside" a particle seems like thinking what lies "outside" our universe. Some aspect or function abides that requires that every potential for manifestation must be associated with a potential for perception or recordation. Unless perception or recordation could be associated, no particular thing manifests into signification. A zero manifestation cannot in itself be perceived, recorded, or manifested, because it does not exist as such. A manifestation that cannot be associated with a perception or recordation does not quantitatively exist.
.
REGRESSIVE RECESSION:  Manifestations are availed for various perceptions and recordations of "inside" and "outside." However, no such manifestations are availed for perception or recordation for ultimate particles, within which there would be no potential for a smaller particle, nor for universes outside our own. Rather, mathematical measure seems always to avail a smaller particle or a further expansion of our universe. Some aspect of the system with which we participate imposes limits to what can be perceived and recorded, such that no ultimate particle, nor any extraneous universe, is perceptible. Rather, the act of venturing to look for ever smaller particles or ever further distances seems simultaneously to be associated with the bringing of such particles and distances into experience. As mortals, we are capacitated to follow and perceive only that which has been prepared for us to perceive.
.
THE MODERN HIAWATHA, by George A. Strong:
He killed the noble Mudjokivis.
Of the skin he made him mittens,
Made them with the fur side inside,
Made them with the skin side outside.
He, to get the warm side inside,
Put the inside skin side outside.
He, to get the cold side outside,
Put the warm side fur side inside.
That's why he put the fur side inside,
Why he put the skin side outside,
Why he turned them inside outside.
.
CONTEXT OF CONSCIOUS PURPOSEFULNESS: Conceptualize a gravitational globe that spins about a north-south axis. Above the equator, toilets will be seen to flush counterclockwisel below the equator, clockwise. This is because the frame of reference would be the globe, itself. However, what if the spinning globe, instead of traversing eastbound around the Sun, were to traverse a northbound path. In respect of the northbound path, all perspectives on the globe would view it as spinning clockwise in relation the the northbound vector. Now consider states of being asleep and dreaming versus being awake. While asleep, with no one else to share your experience, and taking your own body (globe) as your frame of reference, your dream may seem real. Once you are awake, so that you must include other persons in your frame of reference, you recognize "that reality," FOR THAT PURPOSE, as being superior.
.
**********************
.
CIRCULAR DOVETAILING OF COLLECTIVE DREAMING WITH COLLECTIVE EXPERIENTIALITY:
.
TAKING THE INSIDE MEASURE OF THE HIGGS: I suspect “physical things” can be concocted to be perceived “inside” a receding point, but only with participation (resonant identification?) in apprehending a frame of reference in relation to which to “observe” such things. Upon each such concoction, the point itself becomes no longer a point, but a spin-orbit-roll around its own centrally organizing point (or principle of mathematical algorithm), and so on. In ultimate respect, to search for the smallest (or most fundamental) physical point is as vain as to search for the end of the rainbow, the bottommost turtle, or the smallest mathematical decimal. Even so, in participatory respect, to seek to flesh out such searches seems to yield astonishing vistas along the way, including possibilities for music that may be subject to alternating, qualitative interpretations of music, noise, and indifference.
.
INNER TUBE: Imagine a system of spins that, from a vantage, looks like an inner tube. Imagine it consists of nothing more measurable than spins crossing spins, within spins crossing spins, thereby presenting a 4-D appearance to an observer that he is participating in a sequential series of continuous and discrete relations within a mathematically geometrical web. If measurement pertains only to spins within and crossing spins, either individually or in aggregate, then no participating observer “within the tube” would ever be able to see or take the measure of any smallest or most encompassing among such spins.
.
IDENTIFYING WITH ADOPTED SPINS: This leads one to suspect that no spin exists, purely objectively, in itself, unadopted by a sponsoring observer or recorder. Moreover, no sponsoring observer or recorder exists, unidentified with a focus and context of spins. Still, each observer seems to have capacity to proceed along an infinite way (or relative direction), AS IF there were a smallest and a most encompassing spin. How may this be conceptualized as possible? How is it that no smallest or most encompassing spin is ever quite reached, but always recedes? How is it, that as each new and smaller level of significance and each more encompassing field or order of magnitude is discovered, it seems as if its “residents” had always existed?
.
DOVETAILING BETWEEN LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANT EXPERIENTIALITY: Has some cone of shared experience been perpetually prepared before us, and is it being infinitely prepared before us, to allow us continuously to discover new takes on worlds and levels of significance and mathematical magnitude? Why is it that “math is incomplete?” Does our shared experience phase-shift, in imperceptible correlation with our perspectives, back and forth, in feedback with a continuously encircling (or looping) “Collective Unconscious” (God?), in dreams within dreams and in shared realities within shared realities?
.
SPINS EXPANDING IN CONCERT WITH PERCEPTION: What lies beyond (or “interpenetrating” with) the most encompassing “inner tube” of associated spins imaginable? Does the “inner tube itself” spin, orbit, and roll? If so, what, beyond itself, would it spin in relation to, if, by definition, every spin that can be perceived is part of our shared universe?
.
GUIDING COLLECTIVE UNCONSCIOUS: The “answer” seems to be that our “entire” world “spins” and signifies in relation to a non-measurable, qualitative, “dark,” “collective unconscious,” which, by its mindful dreams, images, and imaginings, guides and prepares the way for our experiences of various levels of measurably shared “reality.”
.
***********************
.
GEOMETRICAL CLASS-SET LOGIC: Class-set logic is never complete, quantitatively.
.
NO EXTERNAL STANDARD AGAINST WHICH TO MEASURE THE HOLISM:  The spin of the WHOLE TUBE is subject to continuously guiding, Qualitative alteration. There is no external, objective, standard against which to measure it, as a constant, apart from what is needed to preserve identity in consciousness.
.
COLLECTIVE UNCONSCIOUS:  There abides an infinite Quality for imagining, beyond measure in terms of only real numbers, with capacity to imaging the objectively nonsensical, such as time travel, what if, etc.  There abides, in identification with a shared cone of experience, a shared and thus objectively measurable representation of reality, so that such physical reality can be measured and experienced simultaneously from more than one perspective in a sequence.  Imaginary Numbers seem more to pertain to the dreamed and objectively nonsensical.  Real Numbers seem more to pertain to such reality as is subject to shared objectivity.  Real numbers seem more to pertain to quantitative, 4D geometry. Imaginary numbers seem more to pertain to qualitative, collective unconscious.
.
DIMENSIONS FOR REPRESENTING SIGNIFICATIONS: 3D - 4D representations facilitate idealizations of infinite layers and levels of spins within orbits within rolls, conserved in respect of dovetailing levels of real and imaginary significations. 2D representations seem more restricted to levels of spins within orbits, less facilitating of imagination of 3D compressed AS IF it were 2D, etc. 2D representations seem not to avail curve-back, fold-back, loop-back, dovetail-conservation of collective dream with shared reality.
.
FRAMEWORK LAGGING, DRAGING, AND PHASING:  Real math seems to help prepare ways for phasing from old frameworks to old frameworks newly discovered, prepared by a preceding collective unconscious, so phase-in and phase-through remain beyond measurable perception as pertaining to anything that has not been long established.  Because frameworks are subject to constant and continuous change, the math that helps define them is never quantitatively complete.  Spin lag may facilitate entangled iterations, for iteratively representing much the same signification, event, or thing.
.
SELF-FULFILLMENT AND EMPATHY:  To imagine, to conceptualize, is to associate with impartation of spin, which can tend towards becoming self-fulfilling.  What is self-fulfilling is often constricted to less-empathetic layers of idealizations of “selfness,” depending on one's identification of self and self interest.
.