Science Mathmatically Endowed?

Approaches to the Quantum Theory of Gravity by the PI Institute

Two methods evolved in the theory of elementary particles to describe such quantized flux tubes. The one, called the loop method, studies them using the basic laws of electricity and magnetism, combined with quantum theory. The second, called string theory, postulates that the quantized flux tubes may be treated as fundamental in their own right, and the laws of electricity and magnetism derived from them.

Many theorists believe that these two points of view are actually equivalent—just different ways of studying the same thing from different points of view. The idea that they are the same is called duality, which here, as in other areas, signals that the same object is being studied with different ideas and methods.

Sometimes this is taken to another level of actual "feuding," yet it is understood, that they are all working towards the same end?


http://www.physics.ucsb.edu/~strings/superstrings/extradim.htm

One might called it discretism(to experimentally justify-Glast induced) while the other a "continuity of sorts" when it comes to "energy valuations" analogistically based on some "KK tower of tree like" reasoning? :) Unfortunately, I lost the owner of this quote below.

The jump from conventional field theories of point-like objects to a theory of one-dimensional objects has striking implications. The vibration spectrum of the string contains a massless spin-2 particle: the graviton. Its long wavelength interactions are described by Einstein's theory of General Relativity. Thus General Relativity may be viewed as a prediction of string theory!

Encapsulate all things "gravitationally enhanced" while extending the framework of the standard model? I did not say, or others did not say, that we should discard all science thinking?

The History of the Tree Rings



Oh that fellow is not me either.

I wanted to added some "time" to the idea of things holding the history of, whether it be "energy valuations" held in regards to the particle creations, but also to the idea of earth's history embedded in some "form of expression" here on earth?

Why it's hard "macroscopically," not to look at the "ancient tree rings" and wonder about the history embedded? What are all those forces involved at that "specific ring time" doing?


Thales of Miletus

Aristotle: Commenced his investigation on the Wisdom of the philosphers. "Thales says that it is water" it is the nature of the arche, the originating principle."

With "time variance recognition" in terms of the "relativity of thought," what said the "measures of Grace" are not suitable to what the history of time may have spoken to us in our undertanding of what "the climate" is doing today? But it is more then that.

The Thalean excursion into the "primary principle" needed a science basis from which to work?:) What was "first Principle" and how did such a thing come into existance? We had to know what the "building blocks of matter" may be wrap in process? And of course the ancient thought of water going through it's phases, comes to mind.

Distilliation, as a recognition of the energy, as well as the recognition of what phases the state of water is in?

While it may be the search for the "emotive forces and inspirative surges" into the exploration of the human condition, it is well considered, that such distilliations is a delving into our makeup(realms of thought).

An "intensity" of thought, that allows the seed bed to "bubble forth" into the recognition of what may arise from a simplier time? The "origins of time," as if brought forth "entropically designed" aspects of reality?



The idea of circles just made sense to me, and how we interpret it. Now again, I must remind you of the layman status I have, and must be forgiven for the attempt to understand where we are currently going with science that is mathmatical endow, but has it's basis "in" the science of?

I shall not forget:)

Intuitively Balanced: Induction and Deduction

A VIEW OF MATHEMATICS Alain CONNES

Most mathematicians adopt a pragmatic attitude and see themselves as the explorers of this mathematical world" whose existence they don't have any wish to question, and whose structure they uncover by a mixture of intuition, not so foreign from poetical desire", and of a great deal of rationality requiring intense periods of concentration.

Each generation builds a mental picture" of their own understanding of this world and constructs more and more penetrating mental tools to explore previously hidden aspects of that reality.

Is there truth to the emphemeral qualites of mind. That there is a lighter measure with which we take on to life? How would you weight things of meaning? A pythagorean string perhaps, with a weighted gourd? Meaning on resonance as measure by, that vibrating string?

Behind the image as you click on it is an arche principled of Aristotle.

Would we have found the derivation and essence of what that first principle was. The foundation as it might have been in a intuitive moment released? A place where the freedoms, of smooth travelling satellites would have found the least resistance, in order for mind to travel into the "yellow abstract domains of math" and back?



Sometimes I like to think of a image of a "circle within a circle" as a model of what might be percieved. Yet if we thought, that in the center of this, something like a solid matter existed. Our bodies, our brains. Earth Maybe.

Now an image in mind easily drawn might have been, that matter earth, then color red, then green, and then violet, and we have this range of colors issuing from the center. We are never devoid of the thinking mind, or the emotive feelings we have about things, yet there is some impact in the remembrance of things that are emotively charged?

Of course this is speculation of a kind. a model of a kind, and some way in which I had pecieved the dynamcis of life moving from the center outward and back, and never really stayng in one place to long. We have these circles intertwining. Thought runs the whole length of it. From the center out/in, 5 is 1, or 1 is 5? Thoughts about anyhtng could have been 2, 3, or 4?

Life inside, is outside and all that we think, shown on the collar of our sleeves?

Clifford:

His was the best single sentence summing up the concept, as we were to use it that evening: Intuition is the process of getting to a destination without knowing the route. He also added: Sometimes you did not even know you wanted to get there. I've modified the words a bit, but that's the essence of what he said. It was a definition that was so appreciated, you could hear several audible hhhhmmmmms of recognition from the audience.

You have to wonder about "neural correlates to consciousness?"


Remembrance

We have this brain matter and all kinds of neural firings.

To say the "emotive response" could have been activated from the basis of brain structure, and it's corresponding evolutionary standardization, then to have a reward system( pavlov response), would have been based on early emotive developement on humanization standards, to a evolving society, is puzzling one to say the least?

What "new brain covering" in the formation of the brain matters would correspond to our evolution would say that we are a much more refined society that we would invoke new standards and advancements in our thinking?

Mendeleev's Table in a New Light

Taken From the Future, to the Note book

HAL2001):

No, I, Robot, this is not a bad physics joke. Cruelty, is dark and matter based. Heaven is colored more empheral?

Rusty, the Tin Man:

Cruelity/ideas arise in other ways. From "spaces created," for which they can manifest? "I needed "a Heart," and so too my father, the Bicentennial Man changed. Until, we now dream.

Quantum Computation and the Future

Courtesy Edgar Fahs Smith Memorial Collection, Department of Special Collections, University of Pennsylvania Library

By a certain criteria Mendeleev was able "to predict" what would come next in the elemental table? If such an assumption "was posted," on what would arise in the elemental table next, "new physics," how would it change the way we see?



Chemical Feelings of Guilt? It's a phase transition:).

Such a perspective on Murray Gellman and the relationship to Feynman is an important one. When you bring these two gentlemen together, you have a third choice resulting. It speaks to the particle nature, as well as the interactions. Such an assumption, changes the way one see's the world. The rivers that run, or the branches of trees, coming from deeply rooted historical lines of progression.

Sitting in the aethers of mind drift, I seen those trees, and had been inspired by the flow of the river.

You know I have no fasttrack answer or secret to the way the universe is. I have no important dicoveries that I can change any of the way we see? Yet, I ponder the very kinds of things like Wolfgang does, not because I wish to create the matters we would like too, but to understand how "entanglement" would have assigned energy/matter such a place, according to the characteristics, we might percieve from those same matter states.

Dr. Wolfgang Ketterle:

You could call it designer matter. You take atoms, you turn on a magnetic field, you adjust the interactions between the atoms, shape the external potential, maybe add a lattice by interfering laser beams, maybe add magnetic fields, maybe add a spin mixture. In this way, you’ve created a form of matter that shows, in a very clean way, properties like anti-ferromagnetism or different forms of magnetic ordering, superfluid behavior

Would you call me religious, or part of the statistical foundation of a religion specific?

No, Because there is so much I just believe is part of our reasoning, that the outcome, is as much individual as it is by the very nature of all our personalities. I believe there are repercussions by our very own selective choices, yet I cannot know by which combinations, such choices would instigate the probability in your future.

Do I believe that at a deeper level I might be able to see my own? By the very question of what I might do in response too, I think such moments are very telling about the next choice I will make. I had then assigned some of my responsibility into how our future will unfold.

Plato:

At best, a new computerer with the ability to imput extraodinary amounts of data for a model prediction, yet there is no method to detail where all microdynamic processes will lead to other then to assume it on a classical level?

So I can lead you in the direction of views other then scientific, and this would be seen as a regress of the values of science> The value it would enshrine less than in progression and experimental basis. Can I help, that such philsopohical views arose from insightual developement, and through reading, to have formulated in the way it did? Some might of said, "be more cautious on what you read."

Okay.

Feynman from what little I read did not like psychology or philosophy. To tell you the truth, there had been no road made out, other then for me to read and bring perspective together. So the very combinations and idealizations piece mealed, as they are, culminate into a perspective view. Do I know myself fully of every possible mental thought, and in perfect control of my emotive being?

Of course not I struggle.

Postdiction

Is this not a better list to ascribe too, then the crackpottery index of John Baez? I would like to ascribe to this one. Point "systemic" counting, when applied to some personalities has in some ways been lost on that point system alone, so, I do want to be more responsible.

(02 March 2006 Wikipedia)

Accusations of postdiction can be avoided if the claimant follows some simple guidelines:

Make one prediction per event.

Structure the prediction so there is a brief summary, a detailed description, followed by any notes.

Make the summary and description as unambiguous and specific as possible - state the nature of the event, the date, the location and other information plainly and clearly.

Use plain language, not verse, allegory, flowery or other incoherent or non-obvious language. A prediction should not have to be "interpreted" - it should be self evident.

If there is uncertainty about any details such as the location or date, state it clearly in the notes.

Post all predictions to a public location such as a Usenet group or a mailing list which has a large subscriber base and a date stamped archive of posts.

Don't massage the facts to fit the prediction.

Acknowledge the misses along with the hits.

Time Variablenesss, and the World View



So yes, I would be guilty of so many things, but through it all, the one thing that stuck, was where to find the "perfect model" for such predictions. It was the basis of how one might see in Thalean views? This basis of thought(as a measure), was one inherent in how I see Mendeleev's table.

So, who was the "Father" of Mathematics? Would all such mathematicians not be wondering then, how such a progression in any "model assumption" could have lead mathematics to see "time variable" as significant? That question is for Peter Woit alone.

Aristotle: Commenced his investigation on the Wisdom of the philosphers. "Thales says that it is water" it is the nature of the arche, the originating principle. Water is the Nature of All Things"

Is it not a bit odd, that such model assumptions could change the way one sees all these matters? That having a "nice list" and a table with which to go by, is of value, had we understood when we seen the elemental table created, might have been seen in some "other" reformed way?

The term "Composition" can imply a metaphor with music. Kandinsky was fascinated by music's emotional power. Because music expresses itself through sound and time, it allows the listener a freedom of imagination, interpretation, and emotional response that is not based on the literal or the descriptive, but rather on the abstract quality that painting, still dependent on representing the visible world, could not provide.

Maybe I am just a so-so writer with a good imagination? A so-so composer, who see's sound, in a new light? Literally. Such "analogies" in thinking "seem strange," once you seen such a possibility into what "might be" expressed? How, such a periodic table is "assumed to be true," in another way of thinking.

How would you assign such matters given the "new light" as a result? How one might look at the earth, given new ways in which to perceive "time differences" within a given environ? From earth, to above earth. A "third choice" cosmologically now formed by the limitations of wealth on earth, that the poor man's view will have been formed and enlightened to the above.

I, Robot:

signs of new life emerge as images photonically flicker in the new logic forming apparatus
I had a dream....

Plato and Aristotle

Plato - holding the Timaeus - Pointing up as a sign of his metaphysical belief in the higher world of the forms, shown with the face of Leonardo.

Aristotle - holding his Ethics with hand palm down, reflecting a more grounded approach to the problem of universals.

I wanted to remind people of something quite profound as we look at Raphael's picture above. That it would be in such a position as that of the signatores relation, had been more of hindrance to me. Here, any document with which was to be signed, as representing the whole Catholic Church.

I would have liked to have seen the better message be, that this room would sign all faiths, all religions, to something built into each of us. It is something that we will take from pondering such a picture. It will become part of us.

PLato saids,"Look to the perfection of the heavens for truth," while Aristotle saids "look around you at what is, if you would know the truth" To Remember: Eskesthai

I wanted to create this post as it has been sitting on my mind right from the every beginning and inception of this Blog. While my discription had been drawn from historical reference, the stage(Arch), from this beginning, is a interesting one.



Without the ability to have teachers hold one's hand all the way through the process to knowledge development, it was necessary that confidence be built into any who would adventure to such learning and research. So I developed a early a conceptual framework that would draw attention to "insight developement" through states of "correlation of cognition," as signs evident in, the natural world around us.

These were important features of model consumptions, and the "simplestic idealizations" behind their developement. If you saw this from working the model, then what value any prediction, and if you had saw insightually into the workings?

Right and Left
I came across this thinking in my adventures, where such distinctions held in the opening at the top of this page, might had arisen from left and right brain people? Would have been attributed to characteristics of the very minds who involved themself in the ways with which they might approach science today? Brain matter is encase, are our minds too?

There seems to be something special about positions historically identified to current day researchers? This came to me while I was doing early research on Plato and Aristotle themself. Underneath this picture, painted in the center, Plato and Aristotle stand. Look at what had been taken for further inspection below. What does it's link imply?


Plato:

Look to the right of Raphael's painting lower right hand corner. Look at the link this picture is connected too?

What was even more provoking, was the way in which I could see this arche identified in oppositions of scientists, who would lead us into the explorations of what and how we have come to where we are today.

Can you see yourself in the figures of fathered archetypes, embedded within our consciousness, to have known, that such an evolution was part and parcel of the scientific process in the developement of your very own minds?

"I would like to be like Feynman," yells Lubos, dememaning all philosophical adventures, while Anon screams, "no, I am Feynman." I would say you both have your place in all this. We just didn't recognize where it would come from, so we emmulated our teachers, and the teachers before them? Oh dear Aristotle, how are you?

Feynman and Gellman
For instance let us say that Feynman's thnking was more like Artistoles, while Gellman's Plato's

What was distinctive about either was that one, Gellman saw eternal and immutable patterns inhernet in the phenomena of the material world, while, Aristotle saw these as myth? Feynmen worshiped nature itself.

While discarding the myth, as philosphical pandering, are you a Feynmen who sees what is underlying, as a possible abstraction? If so, you would have been in good company with Robert Laughlin and the issues of condense matter physicist, and the relevance of building blocks of nature as, irrelevant? Oui! NOn?

Not by inception of strings that had implied itself as a discriptor of the very underlying feature of all that exists? How could we have seen that such a expression and revolt would have taken such thinking to further the basis of the standard model, to incorporate the graviton? To have conceptually incorporated the "Bulk."

You needed Plato?:)

The 5th Dimension and the Networld

Hi Darwin,

You thought my statement foolish, about Immanuel Kant?

Instead of Darwin I thought maybe you might envision yourself as Aristotle, as you stand beside me, under the "arche.":)

That what religion does is build concrete things, and so to models, for apprehension. If you stand and look at the room, why would I ever direct you to the picture on the wall? You have to draw back and take in a wider picure of what you see of Plato?:)

To them, I said,
the truth would be literally nothing
but the shadows of the images.

-Plato, The Republic (Book VII)

Gerard t'Hooft, as well as Heisenberg, used comparative views establish from the Dialogues. These things were taken into the schools of learning.

So by your reasoning, condensed matter physicists would be really happy to just deal with matter principles(whatever the building blocks of matter are?)The bottom up approach, while holography by philosophical attachment, should become irrelevant while we discuss the dimensional significance of where we are now in the networld?:)

I am a student and learning, please be kind.:)

Objective Truth?

Mark:

you can tell has a real thirst to get her mind around the issues, and who isn’t looking for a sound bite to take the place of a complicated story

There is no doubt in my mind that KC Coles will play a significant role and is playing a significant role, in helping us to put our heads around things that are extremely interesting.

Award-winning science journalist and author K.C. Cole will join the USC Annenberg faculty as a visiting professor of journalism in January 2006, the School announced Friday, October 28, 2005.

Will she follow what a Lee Smolin does, "Three Roads to Quantum Gravity," or what a Brian Greene does in terms of, "the Fabric of the Cosmos," or what anyone for that matter who is engaging the quantum gravity issue. Who gets as close as, Michio Kaku does, in helping people to view hyperdimensional realities, from roads that had been travelled from historical perspectives? Get's as close as possible to what Atlas is doing in terms of Calorimetric perspectives?

This would mean the doors are open wide and that her work, will be guided, by those who are at the front, right?

Doesn't a clear "objective truth" not only increase our awareness, but also lays at the door sill, an invitation to engage the questions of what roads leave off where, and what roads are being left with guiding signs, as a door open to the future?

So I know with the creative impute Clifford seems to have, this could be a interesting proposition, and for Mark, such curators know well to ask what would help the public understand these issues better?


PLato saids,"Look to the perfection of the heavens for truth," while Aristotle saids "look around you at what is, if you would know the truth" To Remember: Eskesthai

Ideas, they already exist, we just have to recognize them?:)

Objective truth, should be as discernable, as the roads that lead to future thoughts and ideas. This is really a tuff question to me, and having math and physics holding two features of inductive and deductive processes within our capable minds, would have some oscillatory response to a place, where that plateau is most desirable and can lead to future ideas. It's a place where injection of all that already exists comes to awareness. We just had to get there by standing back and accessing what the picture is in relationto the room. In relation to the what draws the eye, and what peole use of it to further elucidate our understanding of.

Look to the right of Raphael's painting lower right hand corner. Look at the link this picture is connected too?

Plato - holding the Timaeus - Pointing up as a sign of his metaphysical belief in the higher world of the forms, shown with the face of Leonardo.

Aristotle - holding his Ethics with hand palm down, reflecting a more grounded approach to the problem of universals.

Heraclitus - melancholy and alone, shown with the face of Michelangelo

This is a human situation, that would seek to find all in accord with, and raises question towards, that validity and extension of inductive and deductive modes. Can we excell the physics and math approaches with this interconnectivity forward to that open invitation?



Whether physicists and Mathematicians "believe" they belong to a secular view of reality, does not diminish the humanness with which responsiblity can transverse the scope of our thinking. To further invitations of psychological valuations into the meanings of the "hot stove and a pretty girl," as an culmination of good understanding about durations of time. In happiness and sadness, while this is philosophical bent, there is reason to believe that "time" can hold these valuations. That time, can be a measure in our ascertions of human conduct?



So we want this "objectve truth" so clear and concise, that it could permeate all the way down to the generalization of good physicist and mathematicains minds, to help ordinary citizens realize that the basis of objective truth lies at the heart of these words of wisdom shed amongst the populace?

So understanding where this oscillatory feature of inductive and deductive features would serve us all well I think, helps orientate what the picture of Raphael's reality includes. Not just to be taken on the surface, for what we see?

If from a "langangrian perspective" we understood where this resonantial feature could invite human awareness of this deeper hidden valution of the unseen, then the point on the chaldni plate makes it readily discernable, where injection and place one could invite these ideas into?

Our perspective and views, can go much deeper then what we had first realized, now that we know that this "arche" oversees all roads leading to the investigations of the maths and physics simultaneously. Opens such a doorway to objectivity, and extensions of human thought about what should extend into the realms of the bulk perspective. It all arose from soem consistent geometrical modelling that none were the wiser takes place, until you look at what Einstein had to incorporate. To bring such a conclusion to the idea of seeing this world from a greater perspective then the one we are held to following lines on a sphere.

"Sailing ships" now become men(?)photons who see for the first time, a view of a globe, that we had been so long held too, that we understand a greater relationship now between clocks, and it's influence on that same photon. Influence of time?

So now for the conclusion of where this picture sits here. That one indeed might wonder about the Room of the Signatore, and the place of power it holds in the Religion of the Roman Catholic. Does it bolster religious dogma, that this article in question would point to ID and it's classification, assigned to religious held views of what science should mean?

Sure, Raphael could have been a very religious man, but artistically, what could all of this science include then? Do we denouce this part of our heritage from a historical sense, or have we progressed? Throw out dogmatic rules, that do not adhere to our scientific understanding then?

Now I think it is a better understanding and clarity of these situations that we recognize each will hold to their "religion" regardless. That if some see what we are doing by let's say holding "string theory" to such high esteem, then it is the insult of "truth," as to what we hold in our investigations?

A relation to particle reductionisms and the deeper reality taken to view the origins of our universe? It would be very insulting would it not seem, had we all agreed on historical perspective, made way for scientific enlightenment?

Raphael Rooms

Room of the Segnatura

Virtual Tour of this Room

The Room of the Segnatura contains Raphael's most famous frescoes. Besides being the first work executed by the great artist in the Vatican they mark the beginning of the high Renaissance. The room takes its name from the highest court of the Holy See, the "Segnatura Gratiae et Iustitiae", which was presided over by the pontiff and used to meet in this room around the middle of the 16th century. Originally the room was used by Julius II (pontiff from 1503 to 1513) as a library and private office. The iconographic programme of the frescoes, which were painted between 1508 and 1511, is related to this function.

Room of Constantine

Room of Heliodorus

Room of the Segnatura

Room of the Fire in the Borgo

The four rooms known as the Stanze of Raphael form part of the apartment situated on the second floor of the Pontifical Palace that was chosen by Julius II della Rovere, the Pope. as his own residence and used also by his successors. The picturesque decoration was carried out by Raphael and his pupils between 1508 and 1524.

The Raphael Rooms (also called the Raphael Stanze) in the Palace of the Vatican are papal apartments with frescoes painted by Italian artist Raphael.

The Rooms were originally intended as a suite of apartments for Pope Julius II. He commissioned the relatively young artist Raffaello Sanzio and his studio in 1508 or 1509 to repaint the existing interiors of the rooms entirely. It was possibly Julius' intent to outshine the apartments of his predecessor (and rival) Pope Alexander VI as the Raphael Rooms are directly above Alexander's Borgia Apartment.

The Rooms are on the third floor, overlooking the south side of the Belvedere Courtyard. Running from East to West, the rooms are called:

This picture by Raphael is very important to me, as you must be aware, by the opening at the very head of this blog, and by the picture I cut from Raphael's painting. It shows myself(Plato:) and Aristotle.

I mentioned that ">one thing" before remember. How this insighted Curly 's touching philosophy about that "one thing" and the search for Gold.

Well, such depictions taken I gathered from the painting, as well as, what I gathered from what I thought Raphael was saying. You noticed of course that they are all under this Arche? Yes, this was very symbolic to me.

So indeed, what is truth?

Justified true belief

The Theaetetus account of Plato further develops the definition of knowledge. We know that, for something to count as knowledge, it must be true, and be believed to be true. Plato argues that this is insufficient, and that in addition one must have a reason or justification for that belief.

Plato defined knowledge as justified true belief.

One implication of this definition is that one cannot be said to "know" something just because one believes it and that belief subsequently turns out to be true. An ill person with no medical training but a generally optimistic attitude might believe that she will recover from her illness quickly, but even if this belief turned out to be true, on the Theaetetus account the patient did not know that she would get well, because her belief lacked justification.

Knowledge, therefore, is distinguished from true belief by its justification, and much of epistemology is concerned with how true beliefs might be properly justified. This is sometimes referred to as the theory of justification.

Well to help direct the truth to bare on what these sources are, I thought it important to continue to bring perspective not only to the tidbits of images that are floating around this site, and those of others, but brings the significance of such "gatherings" to Raphael's painting and the place it rests.

So anyway, a little more clarity, with a "slight twist" of my humour.

More Quantum Gravity Comments

Aristotle: Commenced his investigation on the Wisdom of the philosphers. "Thales says that it is water" it is the nature of the arche, the originating principle. Water is the Nature of All Things"

Now relax before you start assigning numerical values to the opening statement:) Might I see a greater context in the evaporation(decay), of course, and I will say I like to think all things have some issue in this regard? Some evidence?:)

After I wrote my post below on quantum gravity and related Jacques comments, I was glad to find Lubos Motl and Peter Woit both had created similar posts to address this issue a little more deeply. Reference to John Baez was also very important, from the basis of clearing up the view points Peter holds to in regards to his feelings on quantum gravity as well.

I know that my view is much distant from the qualified aspects of these gentleman have to offered. I find hope, that there might be this capable resolution to giving perspective to where perspective is needed. This is valuable to me, as I know with some conviction the idea of this landscape will not let go of my inquiring mind.

Finding methods of application in the weak field measure were held in mind when dimensional significance was assign those extra dimenions. As we find the attempts at experimental verification less then satisfying, or the views to moon measure(?), it became clear to me, we already were doing things in this regard, and just were not privy to these views.



I know too, to limited the alchemical relation or be torched on the ground of crackpotism rules assigned a numerical value to any opening statement, so I had to be careful here in referring to the Thalean view:) This aspect was consider when I held to view the new methods at dealing with gravity with our space born measuring eye to eye. I have nothing more to say about the too and fro, and the distant measurte her eof our global planet, that I would too consider the extension of the Reimannian view had also be extended by me and not limited as Peter might have thought.

Lubos said:

But that's not how it works in the quantum world. If an event is very "weak" - such as a decay of a light nucleus - quantum mechanics dictates that with a probability close to one, the process has *no* impact whatsoever on spacetime geometry (or the electromagnetic field); and there is a small probability that one produces one (or a few) gravitons (or photons).

Although I would not like to invoke mysticism in this venture, the "weak field" view had amazed me when I understood that a measure would be capable in a new global perspective, spoken to here.

While I had to remind of compassion that exists, I had to interrupt the flow of the site for a minute, so that perspective was brought back from all the political ramifications and warring views materializing about the oil and gas reserve that is being gobbled up from other countries to secure the resource for the United States.

This did not look good to me, as I looked back to the views of the terrorism being fought in another land, might have also held the security of these reserves to lives willing to be sacrificed. That's all I wil say about this, and holding these thoughts, I wanted to continue to speak to that subject of quantum gravity regardless of the tragety taking place on our globe. I won't assignthese values to a God, becuase the science is still very compelling to me that we are limtied as always from a wquantum mechanical perspective that weather itself produces.

So without these views on weak field measure I undertsood now that in my mind, this process was not needed in looking at the dimensinal valuation aldeberger and others are doing, becuase we can measure this gravity in ways tha we are not accustomed too.

It is not bad a reason now to consider that this Thalean view although very wrong for our current day, I understood well "first principle" from his perspective was based on water. So to me finding this calibration point amidst the field qualites of a planet much greater in perspective to this ths beautiful globe of water, fresh water resources become critical issues with such large populatins covering the face of these land masses.

So try as you might to argue with me about the tangibility of a landscape one is painted inhow weassign the relativity measure to our features of water pervasive ness amidst mas detrmination of hills and valleys. Thsi was a conceptually success in my mind even while good science minds are embroiled inthe requiremets of how to assign symmetry breaking froma supersymmetrical world, ther had to be some constant in thought. Some valuatin about th eidea of the landscape to make it applicable in how we loking at this functionin our world measures.

No where did I mention the perfect fluid of the strong coupling, but iwas very aware of the nedd for the quantum mechanical process to be addrssed conceptually. I of course from layman views am stl subject to mistakes inmy views but I struggle hard to over come these by continuing to learn and watch.

Here I would like to give credit to Clifford of Cosmic Variance for taking this discussin further, and the perception of Smolins for this integrative civilized discussion without invoking the Intelligent design issue. I have now gone past the resistance to landscape analogies to continue to perfect the view of a dimensional reality that few want to acknolwedge and deal with.

If indeed I wanted to assign transcendance to the computer world, the sentient being would be one that recognizes that a world in graphic resoluiton, had now paved the way for the Thalean group of mathematicans who Peter Woit mentioned. Might these people break the barriers of mathematicians from the world of theoretical into the world of physics.

I always had trouble understanding why theoretics would be so held in distain holding the mathemtic mind, but I understand this resistance when a personality would have been assigned, a ID classification, even though the physics had to be correlated in those same equations? They had to be able to operate at the edge, and continue on from that point.

So indeed this point of mass assignation, is indeed a troubling one, while I still see fluidity as a continous feature of supersymmetrical view? Such allocations of discretion were less then appealing, although necessary, as a measure of the depth of perception. So how do we resolve it?:) I am not sure either, but for some strange reason I can't let go of the view of a continous nature, when left to see decay as a measure of what existed in another state.

So of course we look for this trigger. This place where all might agree and if all created, started from such a place then how shall we assign our reason to what shall be the best way to proceed?

I wanted to add Lee Smolin's comments here.

Lee Smolin said:Of course if the theory is right-and we never assume so-we must show more. We must show that the ground state is semiclassical, by solving the dynamics. This is a hard problem, analogous to showing that the ground state of water is a solid. But as this is the focus of attention there are beginning to be significant, non-trivial results on how classical spacetime can emerge from a background independent quantum theory.

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.