Geometry of Nature Verses Human perceptions of natural symmetry.

The idea that probability is a basic dimension in reality and not something we just perceive artificially brings up questions about  what we think we know is probable.  In nature elements and molecules are prone to crystalize.  They assume distinctive predictable shapes as crystals grow where and when they do.  We have tables that show the expected shapes and  it may or may not be the case the crystals form in the same shapes in different environments say with less gravity on a smaller planet or much more in a much larger planet.  Some of that can be tested in the lab increasing pressure and temperature to mimic higher gravity. So we have a pretty good idea about what shapes are likely to be assumed by crystals of various combinations of elements and molecules.  What we cannot as easily predict is how crystals will grow independently and in formations of multiple crystals. The variables are so many that we have collections of rock mineral crystals  of many different diverse variations.  Man made crystals tend to have similar and completely different fofms that are not found in nature including various diamond cuts for raw diamonds.  crystals are not all symmetrical when we find them in nature but they do have some modulus of symmetry we can assume is a form of symmetry.  It is like looking at all the visible structures in the universe as seen by our various telescopes.  We see the same sorts of structures near and far.  Most famous are spiral galaxies we see as close as 1-2 million light years away and as far away as 10 billion light years away.  We accept what we see with our high power telescopes as being straight forward what we think we know as opposed to something other than what we think we know.  At the same time we are willing to accept ideas that time is not absolute and that time space may just be showing us an illusion.  It seems entirely possible that we see in any moment time warped structures that are actually stable except they are beyond

Why not use the super collider at CERN to prove that probabiliy is one of the most basic dimensions of the cosmos?

What I find most interesting about super collider experiments is the ability to predict the types of outcomes expected.  The hole idea is to have some standardized means of detection that actually may preclude having any unexpected detectable events.   It seems strange that with an array of macro level detectors that sub-sub-sub particles are going to be detected and not just pass though , between or beyond detection?  To the extent that the results are predictable might really be more important than exactly what might be deduced as happening.  The actual results are in a sort of black box from which a lot of inferences are required to try to understand what ever happens inside that box.  Predictability is a sure sign that probability is acting as a sequencer of events.  Meanwhile I am wondering why we don't grow crystals guided by some computer medium.  I am thinking of a 3-D equivalent of a flat screen tv matrix.  Crystals develop their characteristic geometric faces because they are in a medium for growth and not outside of some medium.  It is important when looking at a quartz crystal to realize it did not assume it's characteristics out in some vacuum.  Those perfect looking geometric facets of crystals form at an interface with the medium.  I was looking for probabilities when it comes to quartz crystal growth because those crystals tend to grow in  the company of many others exactly like the rest with plenty of variation deviations. I still can not find any mathematic formula to generate crystals as a computer simulation.

What happens when all the basic assumptions of a theory are wrong? The theory still exists.

This conditional probability thesis blog is about probability itself being a fundamental "dimension" of the universe.   Go back to the beginning of the blog to see it there.  As it goes we have the top three dimensions.  point, line , plane , the fourth dimension that is volume  and then we have time which is really the same thing as distance.  This comes from Euclidian geometry as I have understood it.  Then come other times of dimensions one of which is of course something like or is gravity, space-time  as some see it or as I see it dimensional expansion / dimensional contraction.  This is where you have a distances defined by mass of something like a sphere  where the spokes of the radius can actually contract with rock crushing power as we see first hand here on earth.  If the earth had less density because of some ability to have less gravity the diameter of the earth could be many times longer than it presently is.  Of course I am not saying any of my assumptions are wrong but I do find in my experiments that photons have no mass at all because they do not retain nor transfer momentum to mass when absorbed.  I found that blows up a major assumption that led to one of the theories of relativity.  I discount the idea that black holes are going to absorb light because light has mass and cannot escape gravity of the magnitude a black hole is supposed to have.  Already black holes get brighter and brighter where they are detected and the theorists who still see them there find an area where there is nothing visible and say "see there is a black hole.  Nothing is visible in the middle there."  Good for them.  The theory is safe.


Gravity according to relativity and the existence of a frames of reference illusion is crushing rock to make planetary spheres and crushed rock being crushed and melted is highly activated meaning it has measurable kinetic energy which tells me that gravity at it's source the center of a sphere like that of earth is not slowing time , as I know time, down but rather speeding it up.    That does not mean that Einstein is wrong about everything it simply reverses the intellectual mind experiment saying that mass is not creating gravity but gravity is creating mass and perhaps time/ space time is being created by gravity and not the other way around.  Which is more like the Original Newton model where gravity is a force.  I found empirical evidence that seems to support this in my new laws of physics dissertation that is still uncorrected sorry to say but online somewhere.  The question about time is what time is it from the perspective of the cosmic time keeping mechanism?  So far as I am concerned yes the universe could have been created in seven days.  Why?  Because simple logic.  Before the first day there were no days to measure days by and then there was light which implies a big bang or the sun was born but there is no earth going around in a circle yet no orbiting planets yet so days , years are months and millennia are completely undefined.  A day can be billions or trillions of years as we know it.  That way in 7 days as reported in that ancient story, it is entirely possible and likely that it only took seven measured days for creation .  The bible does not say the days are units we know as days because the story clearly says nothing had been created yet least of all clocks.


So I see a planet like the earth and a star like the sun as probability generators.  We like to think of clocks as regulated time pieces.  For me these massive things in the cosmos are the cosmic clocks we have and they set time in their relationships with each other and with  the forces that shape them.  I have to wonder if the greater galaxy even has the same time scale or perception of time that we do.  It is entirely possible that other beings  elsewhere in the cosmos count our years as seconds in their life spans.  Why not?  why would we assume our time scale is universal when we know a Jupiter year is a lot longer than an earth year and then we look at that planet and see regular wind speeds over ten times the higher range of earth wind speeds on average.  That may not seem like some coincidence being a longer year with higher wind velocity but it does say that our sense of dimensions is based on how we experience life where we are.


The thing that gets interesting now is that probability is about the outcomes that  time allows to happen.  Without time there is no need for probability analysis as there are no changes that can be expected otherwise.   Time itself is a probability work sheet.  With a clock, a regulated clock, we all bet that the clock will be on time , keep time which it does not do which is why clocks need to be reset from time to time.  If time can get stuck in a clock than there is an issue of probability there.

Blowing A Hole Wide Enough To Swallow A Mile: Decoding God and the wrong approach to scientific beliefs.

What is superposition? - ‎What is quantum? - ‎What is quantum theory?

Schrödinger's Cat  thought experiment .  What happens when the thought experiments predetermines the fate of a cat?  Your thoughts have influenced the outcomes by defining probabilities and by fabricating the narrative or if you prefer the outcomes/ by cause and effect.  Sure there are a large number of permutations.  Say the outcome of a cat being alive or dead is 50/50  That means a very rough estimate with an infinite number of trials for anything to be exactly 50/50  and for 50/50 there can be an infinite number of variables.  Perhaps an infinite variables will lead to such round numbers.    If you flipped a coin enough times and it had to hit the ground first after trillions of trials it will become impossible to determine which worn side of the coin was heads and which used to be tails.  50/50 is a blended notion not one necessarily observed in nature with all of the natural complexities.

The fascinating thing about Schodinger's cat is the though proposal having a fixed number of combinations that  include.  Alive and Dead.  Dead and Alive, Not dead  and Alive,  Not Alive and dead, Both dead and Alive.  These do not even include the added variables of atomic particles , poisons, breaking glass and thinking about it all.  God himself is a thought experiment.  Either God has a name or does not  that already increases the number of variables .  To think that DNA coding is the work of a higher power unless you are talking about raw probability of conditional variables with variable outcome is missing the higher spirit of the analysis.  If God exists he is a probability generator and that alone can build a systematic code like DNA that creates its own probabilities.

Spinoza's Notion that God is Nature is almost the proper definition....Almost ...that is except that If there is a God he or it is total probabilty of multiple variables.

Assuming the theory of the big bang is correct.  I certainly am no believer , but assuming this big bang happened and it was the cause of all subsequent effects and the cosmos and that that is Spinoza's notion of God being nature then it is a theory that needs major modification because for the big bang to have ever happened is a pure mater of probability.   As the theory goes.  In Nature, all of mass and energy were originally deposited in the singularity of a super dense gravitational mass, a super sized black hole containing virtually everything in the entire Universe so the theory goes.  That is almost poetic. Which maybe why the sad old theory of the singularity that goes big bang is so enticing to so many.




But wait for the big bang to have come from this massive density of infinite singularity of mass and energy it had to reach critical mass in the same sort of way that a nuclear bomb will have to have critical mass to begin with and after that it needs  a trigger or a point of no return from which there is no other future prospect than a big bang to have that big bang.  Many conditions have to be met by the theory of the big bang in order for any of it to have ever happened. First, somehow, somewhere, at some time, all of the elements of mass and energy had to come together and become compressed in one entity before something triggered the massive explosion called the big bang.  That is a sequence or even a code much like the reels in an old fashioned slot machine designed to simulate natural probability.    First all conditions have to be right each one clicking into place like the characters on the reels lining up and having each to satisfy the conditionality of multiple variations that are possible  until eventually the jackpot is hit and there is a big bang.


Say the president never really intended to negotiate with Iran and instead of having peace talks actually intended to bomb all their nuclear facilities without warning, First he would need to have the nuclear weapons necessary for the job selected and put into place  with code to launch them and code to direct them on missiles directly to their targets and there have to be codes and keys entered to get the nuclear bomb to have its big bang with variables as to when , where, delivery , timing plus the bomb has to be loaded and ready with critical mass.  So the same with the theory of the big bang.  All about conditional multi-variable probability that  there should be a big bang or just a small big bang over Iran. If A  and B then C?  God then has to be probability as the determining factor of everything that the periodic table can and DNA can code into existence.  That does not sound very scientific until you put it into a mathematic formula to define god which then has every thing to do with those simulation casino slot machine reel configuration where in order to receive the major big bang jackpot all the reels have to line up such that  aces or cherries all line up on a line that is also happening to be yet another conditional probability for a jackpot to occur. So it goes like this: If all the conditions are met a big bang is likely if not inevitable because that is not necessarily known.  Maybe something other than a big bang could have otherwise happened instead?


One can open a combination lock on a safe by knowing a set of calibrated moves for the dial of lock.  These safes can only be opened with the right combination of numbers...

Praying is an attempt to influence probability in coming events, I am pretty convinced now that the nameless God of the ancient monotheist Hebrews is Probability itself.

That nameless monotheistic Hebrew God is non other than probability. One prays to influence inevitable coming events and their outcomes. If you were going to give probability a name and anthropomorphize it I guess you could call it good luck but that would not include other kinds of luck including bad luck and no luck at all. There are good luck gods in plenty of other religions. If you were not going to name one it would be because it was the embodiment of probability. That may not sound very scientific but considering the number of times people around the world pray every minute of every day it actually maybe an important insight. It is sort of the same type of analogy the string theory believers are found of using . String theory is an analogy type of science and it has something in common with conditional probability as a major underlying dimension of cosmic reality. String theory actually has less science and mathematics behind it. Maybe you can calibrate various strings with frequency and wave but that is pretty arbitrary. Probability can easily be calculated in advance knowing as many of the known or knowable variables on the onset of any attempts. Praying is the magical thinking hoping for a favored or more favored outcome rather than just any outcome. Still knowing there is a multiplicity of possible outcomes is entirely different than saying a string in some tone or frequency is going to match. We can calculate the probability of life existing on earth sort of but can't say it evidences itself because of harmonics in nature.

Weather "Conditions" signify probabily! Never really thought about that before....

Did you know we use the word "condition" and "conditions" to describe the weather . The reason why is that weather is conditional on probability. Probability determines the weather . That is why we can have normal conditions that are in an average range and statistical outliers in either very calm or extraordinarily raging. Weather is incremental we mostly have chronological posting of "conditions" from various weather stations and we chart those incremental changes. Average has it own trend over time but that does not prevent statistical analysis showing extremes much of the time and even conflicting with what we see as normal seasonality. It is amazing I never before linked the idea that weather conditions are using a word that is all about probability. The idea of weather conditions says that weather is all about probability. Those that worship a god that regulates the weather and fertility are just worshiping probability as I said before. If God is anything he is probability as a dimension of reality.