Induction and Deduction

Our attempt to justify our beliefs logically by giving reasons results in the "regress of reasons." Since any reason can be further challenged, the regress of reasons threatens to be an infinite regress. However, since this is impossible, there must be reasons for which there do not need to be further reasons: reasons which do not need to be proven. By definition, these are "first principles." The "Problem of First Principles" arises when we ask Why such reasons would not need to be proven. Aristotle's answer was that first principles do not need to be proven because they are self-evident, i.e. they are known to be true simply by understanding them.

The interesting thing about developing vision is of course recognizing the framework with which you will make deductions about the world, and the structures with which you will deal. If held to pre-establish routes, and leading indicators of geometrical design, leading to higher dimensional attributes revealled in topological discourses, then such vision would have required the mind accept higher dimensional attributes first?



Often the very idea, of distilling information, inductively looking at the object of consideration, would have been like sitting in front of a picture and realizing that the very ideas about inductive and deductive reasoning would have made them self know in some way or form. So for me, recognizing the piecing that has gone on with the royal road to geometry, Plato's discourse with Aristotle at the top of this web page, part of deciphering this global village of ideas, is to soak up the picture of Rapheal.

So what I have done here is brought together another idea(the arch), in the comprehension of this picture for consideration. That in model comprehension( and just for the sake of it accept string theory for a moment) it is always much easier to accept the picture as it is, without really understanding the deeper implications of it.

Now in my research, and looking at what happened with Lenny Susskind and the work he was doing, such a inspirative insight of the string vibration in his head would have been a recognition and culmination of other things, before, this image materialized in his brain.

If we understand the topic of this thread, inductive and deductive modelling would have helped one recognize that the model acceptance would have immediately forced the mind to consider inductive and deductive features, as topological expressions of the roads leading from this geometry of expression to higher dimensinal attributes no less then what John Baez describes for us in using Platonic Solids for comparison.



In order to get to what is self-evident, such realizations of higher dimensions would have asked the mind to exercise it's ability to move in these higher abstract worlds, by looking at differents model comprehensions and acceptances, to prepare it for extensions and realizations of those same realities we live in?

"We hold these truths to be self evident"

Should have been emblazoned on the American mind, and the realization of the way in which such truths once accepted, help us to move on and further develope the models we would want of the society as recognition of this whole picture. Simplified, such realizations signify the grokking and acceptance of the model and the ability, to play with other avenues of consideration, and in this case, strings as an example.

It could be Loop or Penrose as well and recognition, that the standard model is part and parcel of the whole view. One would have recognized this if they had understood that to go beyond the standard model and include gravity they had already bypassed this idea and formulation in a conprehensive whole.

From the planck epoch in cosmological understanding, grand unification, made this implicite in the design as part of a comprehensive whole of the dimensional significance of the developing cosmos.