[Fis] gravity and symmetry

This is a new topic, based on questions I have with Michael Leyton's work. This work was previously referred to by Ted Goranson. The focus of the research seems to be a search for innate principles of order - a very important, indeed vital, area. So- I'm interested in these principles of order.

An example of an expression of innate order, understood as 'generals', is a figure in Michael Leyton's book (sorry, I don't have the title, just a few photocopied pages). I'll try to describe the figure (2.3; page 40). It is a figure of four parts: a, b, c, d and is intended to show a progressive 'recovery' of normative principles of order. The figure begins with a, and the subjects who view this (a) move to (d), recovering symmetry. I hope this is an accurate description. Let me describe each part.

(a) Given the axes x and y, you have what I term a 'tipsy parallelogram' situated on the plus side. Only one vertex is grounded at y-zero. The other vertex of the base of the parallelogram is a few points higher on y. So, it has 'one foot off the ground' and appears unstable.

(b) The next image grounds the full base. Both angles become located at zero y axis. So, we have a parallelogram that is grounded.

(c) This next image is quite a change. It is a rectangle. The same area as the parallelogram, but - the parallel slants are gone.

(d) The final image is a square, about 1/3 area size of the rectangle. The parallelogram has 'shrunk' in square area coverage.

Now, to my understanding, this quadratic dynamics is understood as a natural cognitive process, viewing symmetry as basic and asymmetry as derived.

Again- I might have interpreted the whole thesis very incorrectly, and hope that Michael Leyton will advise and correct me.

My questions are:

I agree with our universe's attempt to maintain symmetry. However, I think that our universe, after the BigBang, moved into a mode of symmetry production that I refer to as 'interpretive symmetry', which rests on networked relations. An interpretive symmetry is complex and doesn't have an original mode. That is, it cannot return to a holistic or 'pure form' symmetry. An interpretive symmetry is complex; there are numerous ways to 'be symmetrical', which is to say, to insert constraints against randomness. I wonder if the above four images refer to multiple ways of attaining symmetry?

For example - I can certainly understand the rejection of an image of a 'tipsy parallelogram' standing on only one point, and the move to fully ground the base. I consider this an action of Gravity. Gravity is a mode of inducing symmetry. So, grounding the tipsy parallelogram moves us from image a to b.

Then, image c, the switch from a parallelogram to a rectangle. I can understand this as also a result of gravity, for we have the base firmly attached to x-axis, and to keep the Form as a parellelogram would, like the leaning tower of Pisa, require structural repairs. But - we could maintain this leaning tower, and consider it 'symmetrical', within an interpretive symmetry that inserted that infrastructure. That is, moving the structure from a parallelogram to a rectangle is not the only way to insert symmetry. Does our universe permit multiple ways of enabling symmetry, or does it insist on only the most basic?

The next image, d, bothers me more. Here, the image becomes a small square, about one-third the size of the rectangle (the base remains the same length). This, to me, - is not a result of gravity. Or is it? Is a reduction of mass a result of gravity? Or is there another principle involved that leads me, the viewer, to 'naturally' change a rectangle to a square - and one with a smaller area? Certainly, the square is more symmetrical, in form, than the rectangle. This assumes that symmetry of form is a 'primitive' means of ensuring stability. I agree. We see that in crystals. But- is symmetry of form the only means of ensuring symmetry, or preservation of energy? Doesn't our universe have multiple modes - and these do not reduce to each other?

I hope that this is not too complex a post, and that Michael Leyton can answer it. It is focused, I think, on the nature of symmetry and asymmetry, and the question of whether or not, our universe operates in multiple modes of symmetry-enforcement.

Edwina Taborsky
39 Jarvis St. #318
Toronto, Ontario M5E 1Z5
(416) 361.0898
Received on Sun Feb 16 16:33:34 2003