A Model for Thought?

Bernhard Riemann once claimed: "The value of non-Euclidean geometry lies in its ability to liberate us from preconceived ideas in preparation for the time when exploration of physical laws might demand some geometry other than the Euclidean." His prophesy was realized later with Einstein's general theory of relativity. It is futile to expect one "correct geometry" as is evident in the dispute as to whether elliptical, Euclidean or hyperbolic geometry is the "best" model for our universe. Henri Poincaré, in Science and Hypothesis (New York: Dover, 1952, pp. 49-50) expressed it this way.

See:

Science and Hypothesis

Rasmus said:

If you accept mathematical platonism, which is by far the prevalent philosophy of mathematics, at least among mathematicians, then you accept that to say that "x exists" is not necessarily to posit a single way of "existing": this very much depends on the x that is being spoken of.

This is a difficult one. The basis of existance arrived from nothing? What is nothing, and as soon as you do this, you have no frame work?

So one percieves that there is always something and from it? So we postulate X ?

In this platonist are discretism people, while the people who believe there is always something, an expression of the continuity of something called X? The true vacuum? The Quantum harmonic oscillator?

This all might be "abtraction to some" but it goes to the heart of any logic. In my case, I have to assume something always existed. So how do you deal with that logically?

Now you might be better educated then me, yet to me, numbers reveal a strange world of things we can't see yet we know exist. We have ways to measure it, and numbers in which to express it.

Now it would be very hard to assume that the average person, that scienitific progress can ever have any basis in what I just say above, but they are articluated from real issues that pervade thinking.

Now real things discrete as they are reveal matter constitutions, and the basis of this dealing with the likes of a Robert Mclauglin, or the likes of those who wish to expound on the continuity of expression. Leading into the understanding of Genus figures, this becomes a interesting analogy to way such continuity can be expressed?

Let me just say here that topologically this wold have arisen from a euclidean based perspective and move dynamically into revelations of curvature and such. So we know that above euclidean perspective and coordinated frames of reference this is discretism's way?

Dynamically the non-euclidean world condensing into a box? Some of us like things this way, but there are higher realms of thinking, that are transcendance to a platonist like me. :)

This is not a "superiority wording," but the true recognition of higher forms of mathematical derivation that the lay person would not understand. This intellectual was moved too, as I developed away from material things? :)

Here I am respective of the lineage of geometries, and anyone could interject in this consistancy. Some will be better equiped to move past the abstraction, while others perfectly comfortable with what I just said.

Is it transcendance? IN a way it is. In that we had moved intellectual academia into and away from emotive causations that might have ruled our thinking?

Is this feature absent from our intellectual developement, or is it more well defined? "Better perspective," as we move away from articulated matter constitutions and speak about "the finer things" above those same material things?

As one knows, one can become very abstract to the lay individual. While any who deal intellectually and emotively from the lay people, are not removed from and have perfected the emotive causes of memory inducement:?) Your history. Although we know of prospective change, as viable opportunites in the future. Continuity of expression.

Rasmus

But many are those who say that this is NOT what they mean when they say they believe in God. If atheists wish to argue against THESE religionists, then first they must reckon with what they are arguing against
No doubt.

How far can science go here? So they look for this beginning.

It's not easy if you assume nothing in the beginning and it is always much easier to change the models of perception. Adjust the view point, to see that a new model can change the way we always viewed things. That what model assumption does when you grokked it.

So like I said in the beginning, and where if such a continous nature is implied, can we deal with the idealization in science?

So if you took a look at calorimentric views and encapsulte this action you would find the point to which this beginning spoke? So a blackhole, is just not some sinkhole, but a transformation of a kind that we hope we can measure finding some means.

Energy in energy out if unbalanced leaves some room for questions? This dimensional perspective is very relevant in math, yet soe do not like to infer this and deem it unrealistic.

Early universe and glast determination have detailed discretism in interactions, as a viable means to measure. Yet we understand well the photon is massless, yet it can be indicative too. Thanks LIGO for engrandizement of the interferometer.

Artists such as M. C. Escher have become fascinated with the Poincaré model of hyperbolic geometry and he composed a series of "Circle Limit" illustrations of a hyperbolic universe. In Figure 17.a he uses the backbones of the flying fish as "straight lines", being segments of circles orthogonal to his fundamental circle. In Figure 17.b he does the same with angels and devils. Besides artists and astronomers, many scholars have been shaken by non-Euclidean geometry. Euclidean geometry had been so universally accepted as an eternal and absolute truth that scholars believed they could also find absolute standards in human behavior, in law, ethics, government and economics. The discovery of non-Euclidean geometry shocked them into understanding their error in expecting to determine the "perfect state" by reasoning alone.

Discretized 2D quantum gravity

Ancient Comparisons for thought

Now in itself, and of itself, the triangle when hit produces sound. IN this we understand the vibrational field that is generated. Hold your finger to a spot and where will the resonances slow down and come to a stop?

The chaldni plate is a easy experiment in using sound, "as an analogy of this higher quality." Some like the magnetic field, and its demonstration. Gaussian arc?
Imagine that the "earth based square," as the basis of mass considerations. Call it iron if you like.

Now in light of the triangle, or "trinity," what ever, lets say that the vibrational nature can be associated to this triangle.

That low notes that are slow in vibrations, also can reveal the mass considerations at the base , with greater vibration intensity at the peak? You now have a scale and iron as the core/base? We know there are certain energy values to elemental consideration?

How would you apply this to the chaldni plate? How would this apply to the world at large. How would you apply this in yourself?