I must say to you that in my case I am asking of Calabi Yau's, can have some predictability to how universe selection is accomplished and thus any steady development in mathematics pushing that landscape to credibility?
This entry is for representing a point of view much clearer then had been previously demonstrated in the following links shown below at the bottom of this post.
Phil:
I wouldn’t exactly say that the evidence presented on its own would not have been enough, yet rather that it became more quickly evident and compelling as the speaker was relaying his findings and conclusions while reliving for us his ‘eureka” moment you might say. This has the learner trade places with the discoverer as to experience the moment. Anthony Zee had the same effect on me in the book I have mentioned. Where I am certain you are correct is that despite the abilities of the teacher if one is not open to things in these ways they will never be sought to be enjoyed. This for me is the difference in simply learning a fact and realizing a truth.
Of course I like humour and in this context, it can show another side to the coin to show that while it has a quality to it in that humour, it also has a science consideration in structure as well. The Aristotelean arch is representative here then of the moment that the climax is reached, as if telling a story about, and we know very well its meaning.
It is the assessment of a "body of thought" that arranges itself around a progressive point of view, that while matter forming in retention times of those smaller peaks of the classroom it became the written word of the orators. You see, smaller peaks versus written transmission of the idea.
Pg 191, Symmetry and the Beautiful Universe, by Leon M. Lederman and Christopher T. HillThat this place can reside in the thinking mind is a quandary of sorts knowing full well the probabilistic outcome ensures that the direction, after critical thinking, is the way in which the mind comes to see itself as it rests in the valley below. Conceptually the thinking has formed.
Pg 200, Symmetry and the Beautiful Universe, by Leon M. Lederman and Christopher T. HillYou see while some are expanding their physical horizons, it is of note that I see they had been expanding their mental one too. Some have comment on the flexibility of an intelligent mind to traverse across the globe of that same thinking mind, to expand the relationships that are psycho relevant in an metaphorical relation to contract it to a humour of a kind, and a hence a deeper meaning.
See:Backreaction-Power SpectrumSo in all aspects while we see this relational pictorial chart it is in relation to the potential I see, that any mind might have settled down to a state to have caught the jest of the revision so that its relevance can been seen in that same relationship to the universe at large.
So the peak in this case is a rendition of the unstableness of the pencil in relation to Cosmic inflation. That any mind might come to this position is to recognize that it has found the fastest route to the understanding of the symmetry of this universe and that th energy contained here is although unstable it is found to be expressive.
See:
See Also:
Hi Plato,
ReplyDeleteA nice piece, yet it is not the greater question to ask, from where the symmetry comes to have it be broken. That is from the valley one must imagine how anything starts from the peak or why ever the pencil stood on its end. With the pencil it’s easy to imagine a hand placing it there, yet with a universe totally perplexing as from where could there be a hand.
As for instance when we examine what’s called random, many scientists say that it is when what is next is uncertain, while a mathematician might say it is an infinite sequence which cannot be described in terms less than the total. The first suggests there is nothing to be known to begin with, while the second implies there is, yet can only be grasped by having infinite intellect for which time and space form no barrier or limit. So as we sit in the valley and look upward, we are forced to ask, is it chance or is it purpose which we are restricted by our limits to know? So when some choose faith over resigning themselves to chance, who then are the ones who know and those who know not?
Best,
Phil
Phil:That is from the valley one must imagine how anything starts from the peak or why ever the pencil stood on its end. With the pencil it’s easy to imagine a hand placing it there, yet with a universe totally perplexing as from where could there be a hand.
ReplyDeleteAt a critical point of examination, "at the peak" the energy is unstable. It is more the idea to me that there is such a place. A place with a lot of information.
Cycle of Birth, Life, and Death-Origin, Indentity, and Destiny by Gabriele Veneziano
In one form or another, the issue of the ultimate beginning has engaged philosophers and theologians in nearly every culture. It is entwined with a grand set of concerns, one famously encapsulated in an 1897 painting by Paul Gauguin: D'ou venons-nous? Que sommes-nous? Ou allons-nous? "Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going?"
How is it we have come to know of the consequences of "matter forming" in the valley? It's not the idea of what is set before one in terms of the pencil "by hand," it's more the understanding that energy will move accordingly, and in cooling?
Phil:So as we sit in the valley and look upward, we are forced to ask, is it chance or is it purpose which we are restricted by our limits to know? So when some choose faith over resigning themselves to chance, who then are the ones who know and those who know not?
Within context of that energy how is it such patterns are described for us, to have them expressed in those same valleys? Does the energy provide for a means to transfer information from a previous state of existence?
These are questions then about times before the birth of. To me this is what Veneziano sought to elucidate upon, as he choose an artistic description above in relation.
This is what I would refer too, as, "thinking outside of the box." Cosmologists are quite happy to be placed here in the Aristotelean view, as to what exists around them, as, to what only exists now. They do not contemplate the quality of that same universe.
Plato, points to something else as his finger is pointing up?:)
IT was to prepare the understanding that we are receptacles of a kind. That once opened, can very well receive.
You look at the body. This is then what creation is about? You look at the mind and the energy that such thought can display. What is in the creative moments that we have discerned a nature contained in that thought? A triangle perhaps.
Plato knew the secrets of modelling that were part of our natures? To have included it in a understanding of securing such ideas in structures. What value such a pyramid or his solids?
Mind maps perhaps?
Shall we repeat only the pattern of the revolving circle or transcend it to a globe? A Nolan chart can represent a 2d figure while it can be transposed to a three d structure?
Shall these then become the templates for a body of thought while we recognize the scale of those same thought forming attributes in descension?
Best?