"It's Almost Mystical": The Primordial Time slide from Lou Kauffman's key 2018 noncommutative talk to ANPA

 

 Kauffman's talk

Part of a Kauffman Noncommutative playlist that I have made.

 "So if you take the recursion...1, -1, 1, -1 and the fixed point in that sequence is not anywhere in that sequence, it's the square root of minus 1."

"So if you take the recursion...1, -1, 1, -1 and the fixed point in that sequence is not anywhere in that sequence, it's the square root of minus 1." the key point of the secret noncommutative discrete primordial time structure as the invariant behind the real number spacetime continuum! Alain Connes makes this same point.

 So I'm back here and I have this way of thinking of "i" and I've made "i" temporally sensitive in that way....But I want to think of the following principle which is a well-known principle in physics, not always expressed this way, and the principle is that: If the usual principle is that very often it's fruitful to take a time variable and replace by "i" x the time variable. And if you're thinking in pure mathematical terms you might wonder well why the heck would that be useful? But if your thinking in these quasi-physical terms then it does make a certain kind of sense, because if you multiply by "i" then you're multiplying this already temporally sensitive entity which is coming from the simplest discrete process that you can imagine. So it's not, there's a certain interpretation there that isn't usually present when you do what's call a Wick Rotation which is to formally multiply by "i." Formally multiplying by "i" takes you from one context to another, like it takes you between a Euclidian context, x (squared) plus y (squared) plus c (squared) into plus t squared, into the Minkowski context where you want "minus T(squared) for example. It's almost Mystical, the way multiplying by "i" and replacing "i"(T) by "i" and replacing it shifts you from one context to another, in elementary physics. So I'm adding a way of questioning that to the brew, in that it seems that "i" is already time sensitive and that has to do with why, when it's aligned with "T" - something happens.

SIUC Seminar Louis Kauffman Non Commutativity and Discrete Physics

 The Russell Paradox appears as a fixed point in negation. Negation is not supposed to have a fixed point in ordinary logic, because negation of true is false and negation of false is true, and there's only two values in ordinary logic. So the Russell Set could live in a larger logical domain, but that's another way of creating fixed points.

 The Square Root of minus 1 is a clock

 Russell's Paradox is the theory that states: If you have a list of lists that do not list themselves, then that list must list itself, because it doesn't contain itself. However, if it lists itself, it then contains itself, meaning it cannot list itself.