On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 7:18 AM, ronaldheld <ronaldh...@gmail.com> 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 everything-l...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to