On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 7:18 AM, ronaldheld <[email protected]> wrote:
> http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0912/0912.3433.pdf > any comments on this? > My first thought was, "Am I going to be able to follow 19 pages of this?" The answer was: not in complete detail. My next thought was how interesting that I spent last night reading about the Mandelbulb 3D fractal and now a link to your paper is in my inbox. The use of "quaternion" had previously only been a visualization tool for fractals in my experience, so that's where I went. After skimming through a bit more heavy-duty math+physics that I don't even pretend to understand, I tuned in again on the discussion of Duality. I quickly misapplied this to a concept of fundamental duality as in Yin/Yang, etc. Interesting enough; many people go over the edge when stretching quantum physics (not saying that you have, but that it's easy enough for misunderstanding to have me going in that direction) When I got to the description of the two circles depicted on the following page (p12) I already started feeling like I had been through the material before. Assuming that side-by-side circles were stereo-optical illusions, I stared at them cross-eyed for a minute. Aside from some color-shifting based on my left/right-eye attention, not so spectacular. However, the cube and the paragraph that followed made me think back to a drawing I made in 1992 and the physical model that followed in 1993. It's not directly related to the point you are making in your paper, but it did make me think about the synchronicity of ideas as extant objects in a concept space that we are both describing from different points of reference. In my opinion, even if we're not looking at exact same object, the fact that we're in the same theater is pretty cool. I think in the low-resolution view, I agree with the conclusion you have proposed in your paper. At higher resolution, the details between our models might not overlap exactly. Do you think if you continue to refine the paper, you will include more visualizations? I had difficulty with physics specialization, but not the general concept. Thanks for a good read: in the end 19 pages was shorter than I expected. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
