He was "driven," as to the" focus and outcome" of GR's growth? Yet, being Jewish, and the meaning he might have had for God(Old ONe) had a perspective about nature, that was embued with a certain terminology?
So having engaged the wording of scientist as of late, I wanted to stay as close as I could to the thinking being developed as they engaged society through their blogging site perspectives.
It was most troubling that any discussing of the timeline and any other constructs place in accordance with that timeline, would/could have been insulting to some, even though it fit into a perspective in terms of microseconds, lesss then somany eseconds of expression.
Again for sure, "thought constructs," most appropriate measures as yard sticks of reality conforming to model approaches? Be open.
Thomas Torrance
In 1978, he won the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion for his contributions to theology and the relationship between it and science
You must understand there is a current struggle in today's world with those who support the Templeton Foundation, it's scientists, and those who believe science should remain free of such influences, so they propagate any information forthcoming as tainted?
Einstein and God By Thomas Torrance"Do you believe in the God of Spinoza?" was asked of Einstein.
I can't answer with a simple yes or no. I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvellously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that moves the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but admire even more his contributions to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and the body as one, not two separate things.
The Nature of Reality
Having read all of Jane Roberts books( some might not have taken a shine to such information, but part of the developing perspective included information that was written "intuitively compelled"), so she might have answered a little different, but in essence, thought, to the nature of the universe.
I'll try and find her definition of the building blocks.
So you are give this question as to what the nature of the unverse is? What is it, and people are lead through theoretcial constructs to develope perspective on what that question might be?
Robert Laughlin, does not care if they are Lego bricks or Drunk Sargeant majors:)
Self Organization of Matter, by Robert Laughlin
What Lies Beneath, by Eugene Samuel
Likewise, if the very fabric of the Universe is in a quantum-critical state, then the "stuff" that underlies reality is totally irrelevant-it could be anything, says Laughlin. Even if the string theorists show that strings can give rise to the matter and natural laws we know, they won't have proved that strings are the answer-merely one of the infinite number of possible answers. It could as well be pool balls or Lego bricks or drunk sergeant majors.
One had to indeed understand that the maps drawn, were drawn from thOught constructS engaged from wanting to understanding where first principles may have emerged from?
How would you do that without undertanding where this map began?
So what use to Engage Strangelets, New Physics
So from a resulting comprehension of such first principles, there came this resulting course of events, that went through all the phase transitions, to become what it is, in context of the strangelet, a perspective about a measure in the IceCap?
I have been following this research for sometime now. I will be updating this information here].
One has to know where to begin with all this information, and that such "mental constructs" had to know where this beginning was. While there are few here mathematically endowed, I wanted to come here and share perspectve in context of the neurological idea behind the mental constructs that we develope in science.
This is not without foundation that, "globally," when we now see, we had indeed step back to access the greater potential in "thought generation," and that "mass psychosis," (could we call it that as such a verification by the masses?)" endowed to measure, experimentally verified.
I'll wait to see if you want some time to digest and rethink, if you think, it worth doing that? :)
True creativity often starts where language ends-Arthur Koestler
Intuitively Compelling=Intuitive Grasp of Self Evident First Principles
No matter the ideology spread, is there something today that is quite useful in our approaches to cognizing relevance, from "thought constructs" to actual processes, currently asking us our about the beginning of the universe?
While such solidification ensues from taking a stand, as a concluson drawn, is it compelling as to the nature of what first principles might mean? You had to understand the current environment, to conclude an opinion about the measures and constructs, as to those measures asking if there was another way?
You couldn't know that, unless you might have read the links of Robert Lauglhin and understood reductionistic tendencies(science), as to the nature of our universe? It's like joining quantum perspective with General Relativity? You would have to known how this was acomplished? It's result, and hence it's application within society?
If one had not understood, shall we call it a "probabilistic discourse," to have now understood, that a new course may be set today, was different from the past, by "one additional grasp of self evident first principle?" That a new page may be written( what thinking had done so) which may change the course of our lives?
Of course, some will not have confidence yet. :)
That the potential exists within each of us to understand we are partaking of a quest to percieve where this point in existance might be revealled. If not at the basis of reality, then what use the math? While I generalize becuase of my inefficieny of these interpretations, the vastness of the world of math, there was some undertanding geometrically inclined, that is revealled as we followed the logic leading to GR.
Did it mean we should be devoid of our belief in a God, if we held to science principles, while, we engaged in the subjectivity of our opinions?
It All Began in a Dream?
An equation means nothing to me unless it expresses a thought of God.Srinivasa Ramanujan
So to me, it is still all out there for us to look? How we might entertain that awe and beauty in nature?
"God does not play dice" by Thomas Torrance
Einstein was not a determinist but a realist, with the conviction that, in line with Clerk Maxwellian field theory and general relativity theory, nature is governed by profound levels of intelligible connection that cannot be expressed in the crude terms of classical causality and traditional mathematics. He was convinced that the deeper forms of intelligibility being brought to light in relativity and quantum theory cannot be understood in terms of the classical notions of causality–they required what he called Übercausalität–supercausality. And this called for "an entirely new kind of mathematical thinking", not least in unified field theory–that was a kind of mathematics he did not even know, but which someone must find.
Once Comsuming any Model
It is difficult to explain how one might have "the feeling" for curvature on cosmological plateau while such tendencies for quantum perception would be rule by uncertainty?
I wonder if such states held in context to what consciousness might be able to percieve at that level of high energy areas, would give indications to particle natures and the curvatures assigned to each particle nature. What gave these meomntum ad emotive feelings to such travel from the initial contact?
How are we able to pierce this veil and environment, while talking about the nature of such curvatures? We wouldn't survive realistically, yet, we are able to perform "thought constructs" to such models?
So looking at time dilation, the photon within environments, what indications for such curvatures, and one gets this sense of momentum, and in another way, something that I have called toposense.
Variable "constants" would also open the door to theories that used to be off limits, such as those which break the laws of conservation of energy. And it would be a boost to versions of string theory in which extra dimensions change the constants of nature at some places in space-time.
Constants with and without dimensions
Nature presents us with various constants. Some of these constants, such as the fine-structure constant, are dimensionless and are not expressed in terms of units. However, other constants, such as the velocity of light or the mass of the proton, are dimensional and their numerical values depend entirely on the units in which they are expressed. The laws of nature do not, of course, depend on a man-made system of units.
To put this another way, if we want to measure a dimensional constant, we need a "yardstick" to make the measurement. But if we obtained one value when we measured the speed of light on a Monday, say, and a different value when we measured it on a Friday, how would we know that our yardstick had not shrunk or expanded? We would not. Moreover, if we were to interpret our observations as a change in the length of the yardstick, how could we verify it without reference to a second yardstick? Again, we could not. And so on.
However, dimensionless constants are fundamental absolute numbers, measured without reference to anything else. Therefore, if we want to investigate if the laws of nature are changing we must measure dimensionless quantities such as the fine-structure constant or the ratio of the electron and proton masses
No comments:
Post a Comment