## Media language usage vs. technical language usage

m concoyle
*28 Jun 2013 18:37 GMT*

Technical thought is (carefully) controlled by society, whereas politics is simply a part of the propaganda system

The social context of controlling thought

In science and math, just as in the media, it is difficult to express ideas which are different from the authoritative dogmas, (or in regard to politics, difficulty in expressing ideas different from) of the political interests of those (owners of society), who both control the media, and who determine the authoritative dogmas of the expert scientists, since science is about the knowledge used in the society for practically creative purposes, which the ruling class wants to control,

but

where the word “creativity” is most often about the technical-skill of a narrowly defined artistic medium.

That is, creativity is not discussed concerning engineering, where in regard to engineering, the ruling class must control what is being created.

(They do not want competition of new practical creative products or processes, which might come from new knowledge. The banks had a difficult time surrounding and controlling the late 1800 technological explosion [a process done through copy-right law], which was brought on by the development of the ideas of electromagnetism and thermal physics.)

Issues about “the actual structure of social power” and the “nature of mankind” in regard to “how such a social structure should be organized” (civics, or governmental processes to be used to institute changes do not work, since the media is controlled by the ruling-class, politicians are propaganda-people selected by the ruling class)….,

as well as issues about the actual structure of the math and scientific languages and the nature of math and science in regard to how the language structure of math and science should be organized in order to realize the widest range of practical creative possibility…,

…., are not allowed to be expressed.

When new ideas, which are precisely expressed in a logically consistent context, on some of the, so called, “free speech” outlets, the only responses are a few who defend authority {since elitism, domination, and inequality are the non-stop repetitive messages of the media (and the ruling-class)} otherwise an organized attack (composed on many people), done either directly by the editors, or by a prevalent organized set of people who seem to support the designs of the corporate-government interests, ie the interests of the bankers and oilmen and military, perhaps these commenter’s…, who clearly do not read the posts, but who continually comment, nonetheless…, are orchestrated by the media moguls themselves eg G Beck, or perhaps G Beck has written a book “How to make-fun of any ideas which the bankers and oil-men oppose” and it is put to use by G Beck ditto-heads (lol), who may be organized by powerful corporate-government interests.

That is, those who claim to want to stop big-oil from collapsing the ecosystem, need not seek to control of all of social organization (which appears to be their plan, based on the way in which their demands fall onto deaf-ears of those who possess social-power), but rather they may need (or find an ideological friend in) new ideas about physics, which can be used to find clean, cheap energy sources, which, in turn, can depose big-oil outright, due to superior technology.

But nonetheless, the faithful-opposition apparently, only believe in the ideas which are supported by big-oil.

Apparently, they do not want to be “made a fool” (they apparently see themselves as being “the intellectually superior types,” who do not want to jeopardize this image of themselves, which they present to the world, ie they do not want to tarnish their badge of intellectual superiority in the eyes of others), and thus, they will not support (or will not show any interest in) any ideas which challenge the authority of physics, an authority which has been used to stifle technology different from oil, and nuclear, and it has been used to build the military-state, which upholds the intellectual superiority of the big-bankers, whose investments determine what is created within society. It is to these bankers to whom the “intellectually superior types” also demonstrate their intellectual subservience, demonstrated by their not being interested in new knowledge (only following a regimented authority, which is narrowly expressed in the media), ie the (so called) intellectually superior types must believe the same ideas about physics and math “in which the banker believe.”

This again is understood in relation to the repetitive nature of the media, which only gives voice to the ideas which the ruling class wants expressed, where a journalist (or a professional, so called, peer-reviewed scientist) will not be allowed to express ideas in the media which challenge the very narrow authority upon which bankers base their investment actions.

Practical creativity, and the knowledge base upon which the narrow creative efforts of the society, is determined by the investments in equipment (ie in complicated instruments) and research directions supported by banking investments.

Yet, despite this obvious relation between knowledge and practical creativity, eg engineering, being controlled by banker’s investments (which, in turn, guide the investments of a big industry serving government) the continual repetition by the media of the narrow dogmas of ’science” being followed by the bankers, in turn, seems to be the reason that the public, or a “voice of dissent,” will not challenge the so called educated authorities (who serve the (investment) interests of banks).

That is, the dissenters are deceived by the media.

They want to save the environment, but they also support the intellectual framework, associated to university math and physics, which, in turn, supports the knowledge and practically creative structures of the banker-oilmen, who are intent on destroying the environment for their selfish interests.

The control of technical language by society (the ruling class), controlling the language of the experts

This is a paper related to the debate concerning “axiomatic formalism” vs. “intuitiveness,” in regard to the application of math patterns to measurable physical descriptions, so as to result in both practically useful precise descriptive information and a valid context in regard to it being consistent with the structures of existence (the debate concerning “axiomatic formalism” vs. “intuitiveness,” were ideas expressed in a “book review,” see (1) below).

If the axiomatic formalism, does in fact, lead to descriptions of patterns which have no content, as claimed by Brouwder (where this claim was made in the past [around 1900], in regard to the above mentioned debate, and where if one critically looks at the evidence, one sees a lot of evidence that this is, in fact, true), then what is an intuitive alternative?

Answer: One must focus on the (stable, measurable) patterns, which one is trying to describe, and then create a complete descriptive structure which is to be used in the descriptions of the measurable patterns, where the new descriptive context deals with (or are concerned with) one’s creative interests, so as to build an entire descriptive construct in an intuitive manner which is of practical value, so as to provide some sense about (or some explicit expressions concerning): assumptions, contexts, interpretations, and set-containment, etc, in regard to the new descriptive construct.

Note: There may be some universal characteristics of math (or precisely measurable) descriptions, such as:

I. math is about quantities and shapes, and

II. a precise mathematical description is only (practically) useful if the basis of description is both “measurably reliable” and the “patterns are stable,” (where measurable patterns are both the basis of description and they are the purpose for [or goal of] a mathematical description).

However, in regard to axiomatic formalism, it is assumed that a quantitative structure exists in an absolute abstract form, where the cause of this truth is put into effect by the proclamation that “such and such an axiomatic quantitative structure ‘does exist,’” and are assumed to be true even if [in a general math setting (under axiomatic formalism)]:

1. measuring may not be reliable (there is not a context of quantitative consistency, eg non-linearity and unstable patterns, eg the metric-function is not reliable model for measuring),

2. there may exist chaotic dynamic events (which one is trying to describe, ie the patterns are not stable),

3. patterns and measurable-values of “vaguely distinguishable patterns” determine a condition of indefinable randomness, so that

either

3a. the patterns of either (1) “vaguely distinguishable events” are not stable, or (2) observable, stable patterns are not determinable by math methods,

or

3b. geometric patterns (which one is trying to describe) are not stable;

yet the axioms, of the quantitative sets which are arbitrarily placed into this unstable and chaotic context, are still considered to (continue to) be (or to remain) true. That is, the patterns and the math structures of what one is trying to describe are not consistent with the axiomatic formalism, yet the axiomatic formalism is still considered to be relevant to the descriptive construct, anyway.

However, the only descriptions of math patterns…, which are:

1. “measurably reliable,”

2. controllable, and

3. stable

…, come from the math context of (partial) differential equation models of (physical) systems which are:

1. linear,

2. metric-invariant, and

3. continuously commutative everywhere.

But for quantum systems this is not possible in the (insufficiently determinable) context of sets of (Hermitian) operators acting on a (probability based) harmonic function-space [where harmonic functions are defined on sets of circles].

The failing aspect of modern descriptions based on axiomatic formalism is that they fail to be able to describe the observed stable properties of physical systems (such as being able to find the spectral values of a general quantum from calculations based on the laws of quantum physics) .

The basic pattern of physical science has been “material contained in metric-spaces and differential equations,”….,

where the properties of their solution functions…, which are about the material-system properties, which, in turn, are either geometric or “the random (system related) spectral properties” (of random material point-particle events in space) in nature…, are identified

…, and whose solution functions have the same metric-space as their domain spaces.

But this containment structure has not been able to describe the stable orbital-spectral properties observed at all size-scales, since the differential equation, as well as the descriptive context, is most often both/either

non-linear (ie quantitatively inconsistent)

and/or

effectively indefinably random

ie randomness associated to unstable and incalculable contexts concerning a probabilities elementary event spaces.

That is, the metric-function of a system-containing domain space, and the model of local linear measuring associated to the measurable properties modeled as a (solution) function, as well as the very limiting idea of materialism (where, in usage, material is modeled as a point, where a scalar-value is defined), are (all together) not sufficient constructs, concerning the nature of existence, which can be used in order to describe the observed properties of stability which exist in a measurably-reliable (system) containment context.

There is a new (intuitive) descriptive context which is based on the geometrization properties of Thurston-Perelman…, ie the limited types of stable shapes which exist in the different dimensional levels…,

where (in the new context) the material and its (adjacent higher-dimensional) containing metric-space both possess stable shapes, so that differential equations (concerning the dynamics of material interactions defined by differential equations) are also defined in the new context (and in a similar manner as before, but now in a discrete context [or in a discrete process]) but these differential equations play only an intermediary role “of temporary dynamical properties of material components” so that stability is determined by the stable shapes of the metric-spaces which exist in the [forms of] various dimensional-levels…,

{and in various subspaces of the same dimensional level within an over-all containing 11-dimensional hyperbolic metric-space}

…, so that each metric-space-dimensional-level possesses a stable shape, which, in turn, can contain lower-dimensional metric-space shapes, which are considered to be material-components, which exist within the higher-adjacent-dimension containing metric-space.

The model of a “material-point possessing scalar-value” is changed into a “model of material which is (usually) a stable discrete metric-space shape,” but further, “all metric-spaces, of all dimensions (and for all subspaces), also possess a stable shape.”

That is, material shapes (which are metric-spaces) fit into adjacent higher-dimensional metric-spaces, which also possess a stable shape. This fits into an 11-dimensional hyperbolic over-all containment metric-space, so that trees of both “subspace and metric-space shape’s” containment properties are determined, [so that the metric-space shapes fit into a containment tree, which is determined by both subspaces, dimension, and metric-space sizes].

Descriptive context (for describing the measurable properties of physical systems)

There is a natural underlying stable structure of existence, which is directly associated with the idea of existence being contained in a metric-space…,

Which is of non-positive constant curvature, and can be of various dimensions and of various (metric-function) signatures, ie related to R(s,t) or C(s,t))

…., where

“for there to exist the properties of both reliable measuring and stable patterns upon which to base precise descriptions”

the context of description, eg a physical system’s (partial) differential equation, is (or must be):

1. linear,

2. metric-invariant, and

3. continuously commutative everywhere,

(for both (a) the matrix of the local elements of a linear (partial) differential equation, and (b) the metric-function’s local matrix).

The metric-space is the base-space of a principle fiber bundle, in which the fiber groups are the natural classical Lie groups associated to both

(1) the various types of signature, and

(2) of various dimensional, metric-spaces.

Namely, the SO(s,t) and SU(s,t) Lie groups, where, s, is the spatial subspace-dimension, so that s is greater than or equal to 1, and, t, is the temporal subspace dimension, so that t is greater than or equal to 0, so that, s + t = n, where, n, is the dimension of the metric-space base-space.

The metric-spaces also have properties attached to themselves, as well as possessing opposite metric-space states associated to these metric-space properties, eg Euclidean space is associated to spatial position and inertia, while space-time or equivalently hyperbolic space has time, energy, and charge associated to itself.

The opposite metric-space states associated to Euclidean space are the fixed stars and the rotating stars.

The opposite pairs of metric-space states for hyperbolic space ([generalized] or space-time) are positive time and negative time.

Spin-rotation is the spin-rotation between these opposite metric-space states defined for each metric-space which is involved in physical description (or, possibly, involved in mathematical descriptions)

Geometrization

The underlying stable (metric-space) structures as well as the underlying (associated) stable properties are contained in a many-dimensional context, where the metric-spaces associated to the different dimensional subspaces are the natural stable shapes associated to the metric-space by means of the metric-space’s fiber (isometry, unitary) group. Namely, the discrete (isometry or Hermitian invariant) subgroups (in SO(s,t) or SU(s,t) respectively).

In particular, in a hyperbolic or Euclidean metric-space, these discrete subgroups are, essentially, the stable discrete hyperbolic of Euclidean shapes, which model the system-containing (or material component containing) metric-spaces, where each discrete hyperbolic shape also has a discrete Euclidean shape associated to the discrete hyperbolic shape through resonance.

The stable shapes of the hyperbolic metric-spaces can (be used to) define a partition, wherein each subspace of each separate dimensional level is associated with a largest shape, where all metric-space shapes need to be resonant with some shape in the partition.

Note: These stable shapes, as well as the discrete shapes of Euclidean space, are the natural shapes of these metric-spaces since they are based on the discrete subgroups of each metric-space’s fiber groups.

Material component interaction (partial differential equations)

Within each dimensional level, ie within each stable metric-space, which has a shape, there can be contained lower-dimension metric-space components whose spectra are in resonance with the finite partition set of discrete hyperbolic shapes {defined for each dimensional level and for each subspace of each dimensional level}…, whose (material component) properties are measurable within the component’s containing metric-space…, so that these components are interpreted to be material components, which in Euclidean space possess spatial positions, and upon which partial differential equations can be defined.

However, these components also define

either

(when lower-dimensional) the shapes of a material system

or

(for the higher-dimensional metric-space shapes) the shape of the material containing metric-space, where the shape of the (material-component containing) metric-space can affect the dynamics of the stable orbits for the material dynamics defined by partial differential equations, which are defined within the metric-space.

Thus, these metric-space shapes defined on different dimensional levels define either the stable spectral structures of quantum systems, or the stable orbital geometries for the dynamics of interacting condensed material.

That is, stability is not controlled by dynamics (though the dynamic energy of the system is important), rather it is controlled by the natural (stable) shapes of the metric-space containment scheme for existence, so as to define either stable resonances (which can occur during component collisions which possess the “correct” energy) or stable orbital envelopes (elliptic partial differential equations) for interacting material systems (so that the energy of the dynamic system fits within ranges which will allow a, resonating, stable structure to become dominant in regard to the system’s organization [either as a component or as an orbit])

(where these interactions can be either collisions, or orbits, as well as semi-free, [or parabolic-equation], systems).

The current descriptive structures used for material systems

One might note, in contrast; the order of classical and quantum physics comes from the idea of material defining a particular dimension metric-space and laws concerning the definition of a system’s defining differential equation are followed by the descriptive process…,

where in classical physics, in regard to material interactions, the local measuring properties of material position is related to the force-field properties, which, in turn, is determined by the surrounding material geometry (whose local measurable properties are determined by differential forms) so that the force-field is defined locally [either as a vector, or as a differential-form] at the same point in space where the material’s position properties are being locally measured, so an inertial equation can be both defined and solved so that the solution function forms (becomes) a global-set of information about the system, within the material-component containing metric-space.

whereas in quantum physics, the random properties of local spectral-point-particle events are given a harmonic context, ie a function space, so that sets of operators associated to measurable properties, are selected so as to form a set of measuring values which are (hopefully) related to the local (random) spectral-point-particle events, ie random spectral-point-material events in space and time define the system’s identifying set of local random-event values, which emerge from the (quantum) system. However, in the operator and function-space (with metric-space domain spaces for the functions) descriptive context of quantum physics, the math patterns cannot avoid non-commutative relationships, where this is due to the complicated geometric structures of the general functions which compose the relatively general viewpoint of a function-space.

Note:

However, if the harmonic functions (of a function-space) are related to circle-space shapes then commutative relations are determinable by the relationship of these (circle-space) shapes to the set of linear, continuously commutative, discrete hyperbolic shapes.

In classical physics, models of local measures are used to find global information about system properties, while in quantum physics, models of local measures are used to determine local information about local spectral-point properties (of quantum systems) which are measurable. That is the models of local measures are used in opposite ways in classical descriptions (where they determine global patterns) vs. quantum descriptions (where they determine the set of local spectral-properties) of a quantum system.

That is, it is either operators or differential equations, which are defined within a domain space, in a context of materialism, so as to either find global information about the system, or they are used to find the event space spectral-values for the set of local random point-particle events in space, which are assumed to be related to a (quantum) system.

Summary contrasting the two descriptive contexts (formal vs. intuitive)

It is…,

either

the local (measurable) spatial structures of material interactions

or

the local spectral values emanating “as spectra” from a material system,

…, from which the description tries to derive an ordered set which can be used to describe a system’s measurable and stable properties. [but both descriptive contexts have fundamental flaws in regard to being able to describe some fundamental stable properties either general quantum systems or the stable solar-system (which classically is non-linear)]

In both cases it is, “use materialism to define a differential equation of material systems contained in a metric-space.”

The new idea is that material and the containing metric-space either bound (from below) or contain (from above), where above and below are defined in regard to dimensional values, whereas the differential equation is a result of new interaction shapes defined in a new discrete context, it is a new model of interactions but which is similar to the classical material interaction.

However, in the new context, it is the spatial structures of the containing space which provides most of the order for systems…,

(but this new structure can also determine both the local measurable spatial structures of material interactions [macroscopic orbits], and where the spatial structures (shapes) of a material-component [which is a lower-dimensional metric-space than is the material containing metric-space] determines the spectral-values of a quantum material system)

…, and (thus) the new structure of both space and material is quite different (than) from the idea of materialism.

To contrast these new ideas with general relativity, general relativity tries to make the shape (of a material containing) space be the cause for inertial material interactions, but mass is difficult to model, since it possesses shape (and thus distorts the shape of space in a non-linear manner), where the description is essentially non-linear and, thus, indeterminable (though discrete hyperbolic shapes are linear, and provide a linear model, in regard to the shape of space) and it has proven practically useless, in regard to general shapes of a metric-space’s coordinate structures, with the only solution being a 1-body system which possesses spherical symmetry, a very unrealistic physical model.

Whereas in the new model material and the metric-space within which the material component is contained are each separate metric-spaces which are separate from each other where inertia (in 3-space) is given a simple geometric structure in Euclidean space (a circle-size [proportional to mass] defined in a 2-plane), and the shape of space is determined by the natural shapes of the (hyperbolic) metric-spaces, which either define material (which is associated with a Euclidean mass, through resonances) or they contain material, depending on the relative difference in dimension of the two types of shapes.

These ideas slip between the two opposing sets of ideas of “geometry based classical physics” and “probability based (or harmonic) quantum physics.” The new descriptive construct which is associated to material-component interactions are close to the classical ideas, while the math structures, which model both material-components and metric-spaces, are circle-space shapes which are shapes which are very close to the ideas of harmonic functions. However, the choice as to the basis for the descriptive construct is, “stable geometries in a context where measuring is reliable,” ie this is similar to the solvable part of the classical viewpoint. However, the interaction structure assures that the apparent random conditions of small material components continue to be present, which is the basis for quantum randomness, but particle-collision data…, based on a consistent set of patterns which are related to unstable elementary particles…, is now interpreted as being about the unstable decay patterns of the natural set of 2-dimensional and 3-dimensional discrete hyperbolic shapes, which are a part of the decay process when the vertex of the high-speed component collides with the vertex of the target component so as to break apart these space-form shapes, where these shapes subsequently decompose into unstable quarks and leptons which are sort-of-like vector components which are associated to the original shapes which existed before the collision.

(1) This is referring to a book review in Bulletin of the American Math Society July 2013 concerning the book “Plato’s Ghost: …, by J Gray, and Reviewed by D E Rowe. In this “book review” the focus is on the conflict between the axiomatic formalists (who determine a fixed language for math) and the intuitionists (who relate math patterns to the properties of existence, so that math patterns are stable and quantitatively consistent) which occurred in the history of math, in a time period (of plus of minus 20 years) around 1900. Axiomatic formalism was instituted for universities around 1920. This formalism, along with peer-reviewed professional publishing, does lead to intellectual tyranny based on narrow authoritative dogma.

As for spying, the issue is…,

that (within the US society) there is already a proven amoral:

1. administration of the law, and

2. formulation of laws, and

3. the media (with its narrow one-sided focus), and

4. this amorality is often centered around economic manipulation…,

…, so that without very strict control in regard to having access to such (spying) information…,

Then the control of this way of collecting information will be (and one can be assured it already is being) used by amoral people for their selfish advantage, with control of this domain already in the hands of selfish psychopathic, domineering types (eg organized by people of the type as the amoral JE Hoover), so that the tyranny of the amoral emperors of Rome will be re-instituted, so that the expressions of even narrower viewpoints and more narrow petty personal interests are to be expressed, in terms of even greater authoritative intolerance which serve the selfish interests of a few [the administration of the law will be directed by the spy’s] will be realized.

So

Who will composes “the army of spy’s,” will it be the Aryan Nation, A Bremmer (? spelling) (Norway massacre), J Laughner (Tucson Massacre)…, the handlers of LH Oswald, or the handlers of JE Ray (MLK assassin), etc…, etc…, or will it be even worse…, will it be the politicians, who lie, and who criminally collude with the ruling-class, eg use spying to do insider-trading in a rapid-time sequence (which high-tech spying allows)…. and (the politicians) who continually attack the lower classes?