Nurturing Creativity

See here and here


It looks as if moderation, or maybe technical problems, has set in for me at Cosmic Variance. So I have to go from the last statement made there by Lee that I was allowed to contribute. To continue with the points I am making.

I was glad to see Jacques was continuing where David B seems to have decided the futility of dealing with these issues of the String theory backlash.

Lee Smolin:When there was little selection we naturally got a wide diversity of types of scientists, which was good for science. My view is that we need that diversity, we need both the hill climbers and the valley crossers, the technical masters and the seers full of questions and ideas.

Raphael Bousso and Joseph Polchinski in "The String Theory Landscape" September 2004 Scientific issue speak exactly to what Lee is saying and descriptively allow us to see the pattern underlying Lee's comment. Maybe George Musser will release it for the group to inspect here

Take full note of the diagrams.

See OFF THE HOOK. Line-by-line crocheting instructions that tell where to increase or decrease numbers of stitches create the global shape of the Lorenz manifold.Univ. of Bristol

Clifford:Hooking Up Manifolds

The artlcle goes a great deal into the story of how mathematician Hinke Osinga and her partner mathematician Bernd Krauskopf got into this, and why they find it useful. You’ll also hear from mathematicians Carolyn Yackel, Daina Taimina, and Sarah-Marie Belcastro. This has been going on for a while, and there are even published scientific papers with crocheting instructions for various manifolds! How did I miss out on this?! This is great!

If you did not continue with understanding the "topography of the energy involved" in terms of what the string theory landscape was doing, then you would have never understood the "hills and valleys" in the context of string theory landscape being described?

HYPERBOLIC FABRIC. Many of the lines that could be inscribed on this crocheted hyperbolic plane curve away from each other, defying Euclid's parallel postulate.
Taimina

IN retrospect decisions we make will always resound with what we should have done, but that misses the boat when coming to the "creative abilities?" What we see may "institute a productive research group?" You exchange one for another?

Lee Smolin:Is string theory in fact perturbatively finite? Many experts think so. I worry that if there were a clear way to a proof it would have been found and published, so I find it difficult to have a strong expectation, either way, on this issue.

The fact that a way had been describe in terms of developing the "Triple Torus" speaks to the continued development of the string theory landscape? How could you conclusively finish off this statement and then from it describe the state of the union, when this had already been explained technically?

We say that E8 has rank 8 (the maximum number of mutually commutative degrees of freedom), and dimension 248 (as a manifold). This means that a maximal torus of the compact Lie group E8 has dimension 8. The vectors of the root system are in eight dimensions, and are specified later in this article. The Weyl group of E8, which acts as a symmetry group of the maximal torus by means of the conjugation operation from the whole group, is of order 696729600.

You had to see the context of the triple torus in relation too where the string landscape places were placing these modular forms. If I had said E8 and the continued development of modular form, what would this represent?

The complexity of the forms themself are limited and finite so how could one claim that such work on the landscape is futile in regards to infinities?

Finiteness in String Theory Landscape

Quantum Effect, however allow a manifold to change state abruptly at some point-to tunnel through the intervening ridge to a nearby lower valley.

Please take note of the underlined.

Well after some thought here in terms of the landscape, it was important from what I understood, that finiteness be explained in the String Theory landscape. That there were markers with which to measure this progress?

A sphere with three handles (and three holes), i.e., a genus-3 torus. See Finiteness of String Theory and Mandelstam

There is a conversation going on at Cosmic Variance that is continuing with the ongoing debate String Theory is Losing the Public Debate. Well from the technical aspects that is foolish.

As a lay person following the debate on the issue of Finiteness in String Theory landscape was the point technically reached that I was referring too.

David has been careful to lead us through this and as a layman I am watching the way he is describing, so I am learning, as I learnt in other debates.

I hope Jacques that you would encourage David instead of express the futility of such an debate, I have learnt as so many others that you have to "talk past a certain point" if you can no longer get the subject moving beyond the ole rhetoric.

So while learning the difference between the "Fitness landscape" and the "String theory landscape, I learnt the difference is the "finiteness issue in the String theory Landscape?" This then been carried to the issue of Mandelstam and the triple torus?

So this in itself was what allowed us to say that the string theory landscape was indeed working toward the issue of Finiteness with which many have found to be a problem.

See here

Sometimes I wonder why I care so much about working this process and I can only conclude that having my own motivations, and seeing where we had been lead to a point, I had see for myself where the limits of the discussion or debate was being left off.

I learnt to move this forward in face of the points reached. In terms of the same ole rhetoric supplied by Peter Woit. I found that if I wanted to learn anything further in regards to string theory I had to move beyond his arguments confronted, and I have even stopped listening to him. Why would you continue to do research, when a forgone conclusion had been adopted? It's easy, just adopt his point of view and why comment any further unless you had some ulterior motive? Some important information that you could discredit the string theory model itself?

Then it would all be done an dover with and we would have no need further for their services.

Mandelstam held within context of the String landscape

Physically, the effect can be interpreted as an object moving from the "false vacuum" (where = 0) to the more stable "true vacuum" (where = v). Gravitationally, it is similar to the more familiar case of moving from the hilltop to the valley. In the case of Higgs field, the transformation is accompanied with a "phase change", which endows mass to some of the particles. See Blackhole Horizon, "as a Hill?"

So for me having markers in place seems critical so I can progress from where future points being talked. I continue to learn from Lee Smolin and why it was important to differentiate between the String theory Landscape and the Fitness Landscape that he is extolling.

Now what does this mean and I needed the article from George Musser's editorial position with the Scientific America magazine to further what I had found. Who said a good magazine, holding a independent position, one way or the other, could not report "bias free" without interjecting it's thought to further embed in consciousness, that a perceived condition exists? That string theory is dead? No, that string theory is loosing ground in a debate? Hardly :)

Considering it's source, I would think about shifting the need for consultation to incentives to post docs, and then maybe Lee Smolin could come in and support that position and then it seems, the debate is going in their direction? Talking about getting away form the essence of the debate on string theory loosing ground. This is a smoke screen being put up when the issue technically were getting close, now required some kind of diversion tactic, of course bas don the same issue with which they perceive string theory is being supported by special interest, and then moving the perception to who should be hired and preferential treatment?

Blackhole Horizon, "as a Hill?"

Physically, the effect can be interpreted as an object moving from the "false vacuum" (where = 0) to the more stable "true vacuum" (where = v). Gravitationally, it is similar to the more familiar case of moving from the hilltop to the valley. In the case of Higgs field, the transformation is accompanied with a "phase change", which endows mass to some of the particles. See Bubble Nucleation

You know I have these thoughts about the string landscape. No where do I find a conversation ongoing that speaks to this.

I am directing our views back to the origins of the universe so that while the geometrics of Smolin's is speaking to what manifests in our universe, the propagation there holds a vast difference to what is being implied in the geometrical topology to other possible expressions asking for clarification "in tunnneling" with the string theory landscape

With regards to the matrimonial issues of the science and quantum gravity, any perspectives with differing views would help elucidate the problems. So one may help indicate "the network" to which each is thinking and thus reveal the attributes encoded in that marriage. This is a well balanced approach to facing the future in regards to science in my view? :)

Hurricane tree © by Jocke Berglund See " A tree in the forest"

Without continuing debate one may come to a dead end, whilst the "opening to diversity" had already been implied in quantum gravity research. Which part of the elephant are you grabbing on too?

Plato:

I know most have moved on.

String Theory Landscape

Quantum Effect, however allow a manifold to change state abruptly at some point-to tunnel through the intervening ridge to a nearby lower valley.

See here

AS a layman I needed to understand the differences of String theory Landscape and Fitness landscape? Are others having the same problem?

Fitness landscape

In evolutionary biology, fitness landscapes or adaptive landscapes are used to visualize the relationship between genotypes (or phenotypes) and reproductive success. It is assumed that every genotype has a well defined replication rate (often referred to as fitness). This fitness is the “height” of the landscape.

See here

Always still a puzzle to me. :) Thanks for your patience.

[Published in: Chains of Affection: The Structure of Adolescent Romantic and Sexual Networks, Bearman, Moody and Stovel, American Journal of Sociology, 110, 1 (July 2004) 44-91.] See "Sexual Network."

It was important that I distinguish between positions currently adopt by the String community and what is proposed in argument by Lee Smolin's perception? You had to know that regardless of the views extolled by each of them, they must each have some "geometrical basis" that allows us to understand what the "bubble nucleation" is talking about. The false vacuum and it's movement to the true.

You had to identify the mechanism used here to extol the points being made.

Some may have designs of networks that speak to the propagation of what this Fitness landscape is about, and people would not be all the wiser if they had understood the geometrical inclination described in the quote above placed at Clifford's ongoing conflict of representation about string theory to have it further announced at Cosmic Variance as String Theory loosing some kind of battle?

Using Boltzman's brain as a recall of what is happening in the blackhole is part of the discussion I had been trying to move forward without any help from those that should be standing front and centre, regarding their respective fields. Why I have hung around Clifford's continued efforts to answer this supposed Conflict? In face of proponents who would like to bury string theory for what ever reason.

I have to include this post so that you understand the relationship of

If one cannot see "the mechanism being used" then of course it won't make sense.

String Theory Landscape

Quantum Effect, however allow a manifold to change state abruptly at some point-to tunnel through the intervening ridge to a nearby lower valley.

Some maybe happy with the propagation of the species :) but one would have to draw their attention to the geometrical basis of these two differing views on the landscape brought forward?

I am invoking "Boltzmann's brain" here. :) While it may ensue from "first principles" I am still referring to quantum gravity in both regards.

If this is not done, then the debate will continue, "in the land of babble" and "Pink Elephants." Us lay people are not happy about this.

See here for link.

So without identifying the "physics involved" and the "geometrical basis" what use is there to continue the debate while it had been thought that the layman were disrupting the process while the supposed educational level was being somehow more responsible?

It required that we indentify the markers from which to progress and in doing this, one then gets a fothold on the ensuing debate about string theory landscape versus Smolin's Fitness landscape? Hope I got this right?

Heliocentrism

Andreas Cellarius, Harmonia Macrocosmica, 1708,

In astronomy, heliocentrism is the belief that the Sun is at the center of the Universe and/or the Solar System. The word is derived from the Greek (Helios = "Sun" and kentron = "Centre"). Historically, heliocentrism is opposed to geocentrism and currently to modern geocentrism, which places the earth at the center. (The distinction between the Solar System and the Universe was not clear until modern times, but extremely important relative to the controversy over cosmology and religion.) In the 16th and 17th centuries, when the theory was revived and defended by Copernicus, Galileo, and Kepler, it became the center of a major dispute.

I am of course adding this so people understand that even though I espouse an underlying pattern to the nature of reality, it is not held to an ole dispute, but had taken on "new dimensions," if one would like to call it that? :)

Bee:

One other thing that is kind of weird if one faces mathematics with 'reality' is that we can't actually determine any constant 'exactly'. I mean, you'll always have some kind of errorbar. E.g. take your example with Pi. You can define it mathematically, fine. Now you can go and measure it. Draw a circle, measure diameter and circumference etc. To get exactly Pi you'd have to measure infinitely precise.

Even more interesting: consider you could indeed measure arbitrarily precise. You'd find that the ratio is not Pi. Because our spacetime is actually curved and not flat. What would you make out of that? It makes me wonder whether any measurement that we could possibly make - if it were only done precise enough - already contains information about the laws of nature in our universe.

(Just made some spelling corrections, other wise verbatim.)

Not to think it has some "intelligent design" to it either, that you might quickly assume the map of the Hoyle's paragraph above, to have some "alternate plan," to who we are in terms of some conspiracy theory.


School of Athens, by Raphael

So historically it was important that people see this from "that standpoint" and then I will move back to the position I am currently holding. Do people understand the relation I am speaking about in terms of "Raphael's painting," as a model of introspective value? Although old for it's time, it holds an important message about our dealings with the world.

That I place Aristotle and Plato at it's centre is a "key point" to contend with from a "philosophical standpoint" as as well from one we recognize today in the patterns underlying our dealings.

The relation of the two pictures [geocentricity and heliocentricity] is reduced to a mere coordinate transformation and it is the main tenet of the Einstein's theory that any two ways of looking at the world which are related to each other by a coordinate transformation are entirely equivalent from a physical point of view. (Hoyle, 1973, p. 78)¹

¹ Hoyle, Sir Fred (1973). Nicolaus Copernicus. Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., London. ISBN 0-435-54425-X

Thomas Young: Deep PLay

A final aspect of beauty that was often cited by readers might be called "deep play". This is the sense that we are actively engaged with something outside ourselves that is responding to us - rather than watching a game of our own construction or watching nature from a detached distance.

I wanted to continue with the article above in my opening paragraph linked. What he called "deep play." Can it be called the "sensorium of exchange with reality" as others too, can measure it's "import to reason?" It emotively had to make sense first.

"Deep play doesn't have to do with an activity, like shallow play. It has to do with attitude or an extraordinarily intense state."-Dianne Ackerman

Can not such an idea would have enlisted even the genius to have found a way to relate to society whilst he had found intuitive moments peaking from the interplay of the "teacher and student" within themself. Engaging the world at a emotive level, whilst trying to find it's meaning about arches and Raphael mandalically placing Plato and Aristotle most centre the larger circle?

Consciousness emerges when this primordial story-the story of a object causally changing the state of the body-can be told using the universal nonverbal vocabulary of body signals. The apparent self emerges as the feeling of a feeling. When the story is first told, spontaneously, without it ever being requested, and furthermore after that when the story is repeated, knowledge about hwat the organism is living through automatically emerges as the answer to a question never asked. From that moment on, we begin to know.
Pg 31, The Feeling of What Happens, by Antonio Damasio

The "toposense" between the subjective world and the objective world. As a painting, or a "schematic," to reveal this relationship which is deeply ingrained in each of us. We just lacked the explanation of it?

Thomas Young, English scientist 1773-1829
Vision and colour theory: Young has also been called the founder of physiological optics. In 1793 he explained the mode in which the eye accommodates itself to vision at different distances as depending on change of the curvature of the crystalline lens; in 1801 he was the first to describe astigmatism; and in his Lectures he presented the hypothesis, afterwards developed by Hermann von Helmholtz, that colour perception depends on the presence in the retina of three kinds of nerve fibres which respond respectively to red, green and violet light. This theory was experimentally proven in 1959.

Some how one can have these thoughts about things "being subjective" somehow misses the scientific validation process. Are you to strict? That it is somehow related to the "philosophical analysis" and somehow not worthy of the introspective history. To even include where such ideas can emerge from is preposterous? What did they build on? Resources, which can be drawn from the archived data and materials, to greatly enhance routes that have already been established.

Would you ignore one who had developed his perspective in relation to "symmetry" and not include it in one's analysis of what may be "beautiful" yet still evades our thinking about a supersymmetrical point? AS a scientist you may have quickly sideswipe any relatin to this yet I know scientists who might have said otherwise.

Only does it then make sense, when something is asymmetrically emerging from it? Discrete?

Beauty, Plato wrote, is not easy to define, but something that "slips through and evades us". For this reason, many logic-oriented philosophical approaches tend to divorce and even oppose truth and beauty. "The question of truth", wrote logician Gottlob Frege in one of his most influential works, "would cause us to abandon aesthetic delight for an attitude of scientific investigation."

See: The most beautiful experiment

Change that Had Consequences

In the post, Hermetic Ties, I showed how historically information was engraved, crafted, into the woodcuts, for knowledge based on alchemist interests. I further explained the process as I have come to know of it in terms of developing this "inquisitive search into the mystery's of what life" is about how the questioning mind of any person can become the "way of the teacher" as well, enclosed within that same person.

The teacher/student relation then is inherent in each of us, that we understand how one can push the other in our inquirers. Comparable to "this Arch of understanding" I spoke about.

Geometrically, I laid this over top of the circle, mandalic in interpretation, that it served to raise the wonder in mind of what is driving this relation of the student with the world around them. "As the teacher" finding consequence to every inquisitive act, in answer.

Such results then become the new and alternate plan to what is used to describe this new found relation. Ways in which the driving force of "wanting to learn" become an inherent "topological feature" of what begins descriptively, now has this inner/outer consequent to "expanding the frontiers of our knowledge base," inherently expanding the "fluttering of this egg of colour" that surrounds each of us.

Debate if you will the words associated to "fluttering of this egg" and ask your self about what science has accomplished in mapping neurological sequences with the patterns of thought in relation to the condensible brain? What it might reveal of the "condensible features." Might such action also reveal in the "outer cover?"

"In 1680, Isaac Newton worked on the abstract problem of gravity and he changed the world. In 1820, Michael Faraday discovered a connection between the exotic phenomena of electricity and magnetism and his discoveries electrified the world. Einstein's 1905 conceptual obsession with space and time led to nuclear energy and the operation of accelerators for knowledge, for cancer therapy and for machines that provide luminescent x-ray photographs of viruses and toxins. In 1897, the "useless" electron was discovered. In 1977, Fermilab discovered the bottom quark and in 1995 the top quark was found. The lessons of history are clear. The more exotic, the more abstract the knowledge, the more profound will be its consequences." Leon Lederman, from an address to the Franklin Institute, 1995

So before this "act of change existed," the position of the student/teacher had already formed a consensus. I was looking to find this place amongst the order of such changes. It became the study I have placed myself "in" as I look to understand what scientists are saying from the "accepted position" they assume. As they work to develop "insight" and "model changes" to what we already know. To push "beyond" these boundaries of thought. The "standard model" perhaps.

That I may give credence to what is hidden by Raphael in "his painting" is to gather a lot of perspective of the history of the times. To have them all resting on the "stairs and ladder of progression" to perfecting this relation "of the inquirer."

The painting serves in this "mandalic sense" to represent the action of Plato and Aristotle as key figures in this relationship of "above and below." Inner and outer. Why their centralized location in the picture

I have been short on time, so the articles that I have read are snippets of the "larger picture" while I can get back to more research.

But the essence "is" that along with "this change with discoveries," scientists have this way about handling things. This has been reiterated by Clifford and others in science. So I just wanted to highlight this. AS part of this fundamental status of moving to ward these consequences and statement of change.

The science press and scientists themselves do science a disservice when they seek to dramatize a discovery by emphasizing that it discredits a previous theory. Such coverage typically does not discuss whether the earlier theory was tentative or whether the new result modifies a well-established but incomplete theory. This dramatization feeds the popular image that all scientific knowledge is tentative. Much is tentative, but much is well understood and unlikely to be discredited. We scientists need to convey more about the status of our knowledge than can be learned from the muddy "most scientists believe" statement. We need our listeners to know what is tentative and what is not so that they understand better the ragged but cumulative progression of science and can use current knowledge effectively, with an understanding of its inherent uncertainties, in personal and political decision making.

So again by giving credence to what scientists have requested by those who are of the science themself, serve as role models for what is accepted, as we investigate and report.

To visit perspective scientists in the know, are not the way in which to say, "hey listen I have found this to be so and so," and have some "revolutionary change." To let them alone, and continue to push the boundaries of the trade by investigating the work that they do, and learn accordingly. To read what they have written, and join in by asking what you are not sure about. Of course depending on the scientist's openness to sharing of themself, realizing "the greater message" can be conveyed to the many.

How did they get to their perspective positions that they know more then what you know and we had not assimilated the required knowledge? What is every statement saying, about what you know of the science "against" what they have learnt and we may lack the comprehensive understanding of what laws we see applied in every case.

Under this whole post exist the thoughts then about Thomas Kuhn and the paradigm as it would have shown itself as "change that had consequence." Only now do you see this relation here while speaking about change and consequence, did you not know that it followed some rules according to some kind of model and research?

Thomas Kuhn

See here for more information on the person, and model perspective. The paragraph is taken to show the connection to the research work already done in the past, on my part. The label as well will reveal earlier thinking as I integrate what I understood of the philosophy, and "other perspectives" as well.

The explanation of scientific development in terms of paradigms was not only novel but radical too, insofar as it gives a naturalistic explanation of belief-change. Naturalism was not in the early 1960s the familiar part of philosophical landscape that it has subsequently become. Kuhn's explanation contrasted with explanations in terms of rules of method (or confirmation, falsification etc.) that most philosophers of science took to be constitutive of rationality. Furthermore, the relevant disciplines (psychology, cognitive science, artificial intelligence) were either insufficiently progressed to support Kuhn's contentions concerning paradigms, or were antithetical to them (in the case of classical AI). Now that naturalism has become an accepted component of philosophy, there has recently been interest in reassessing Kuhn's work in the light of developments in the relevant sciences, many of which provide corroboration for Kuhn's claim that science is driven by relations of perceived similarity and analogy to existing problems and their solutions (Nickles 2003b, Nersessian 2003). It may yet be that a characteristically Kuhnian thesis will play a prominent part in our understanding of science.

Hermetic Ties: Art to Esoteric Form

The father of all perfection in the whole world is here. Its force or power is entire if it be converted into Earth. Separate the Earth from the Fire, the subtle from the gross, sweetly with great industry. It ascends from the Earth to the Heavens and again it descends to the Earth and receives the force of things superior and inferior. By this means you shall have the glory of the whole world and thereby all obscurity shall fly from you. Its force is above all force, for it vanquishes every subtle thing and penetrates every solid thing. So was the world created. From this are and do come admirable adaptations, whereof the process is here in this. Hence am I called Hermes Trismegistus, having the three parts of the philosophy of the whole world. That which I have said of the operation of the Sun is accomplished and ended.Sir Isaac Newton-Translation of the Emerald Tablet

See: Newton on Chymistry

Again I open this blog post with the understanding that what an artist like Raphael may try to do? May include, much of the philosophy of the times, and have these things descriptively enclosing processes indicative of what they had known, but also of what these things could hide within the self.


In center, while Plato - with the philosophy of the ideas and theoretical models, he indicates the sky, Aristotle - considered the father of Science, with the philosophy of the forms and the observation of the nature indicates the Earth. Many historians of the Art in the face correspondence of Plato with Leonardo, Heraclitus with Miguel Angel, and Euclides with Twine agree.

If we watched of distant spot, of century XX aC emphasizes Hermes Trismegisto, - tri three, megisto megas, three times great; perhaps the perception of infinite older than we have and takes by Mercurio name - for Greek and the Toth - for the Egyptians. Considered Father of the Wisdom and Sciences in Greece, in the cult to Osiris it presided over the ceremonies as priest and he was Masterful in Egypt like legislator, philosopher and alchemist during the reign of Ninus in the 2270 aC.

Etimológicamente speaking, of Hermes, the gr. hermenéuiein, “hermetic” - closed, “hermenéutica” - tie art to the reading of old sacred texts talks about so much to the dark as to which it is included/understood in esoteric form. Part of saberes that it accumulated transmitted through the Hermetic Books that only to the chosen ones between the chosen ones could be revealed. As much Pitágoras and Plato as Aristotle and Euclides were initiated in the knowledge of the Hermetic School.

In Man looking into Space, I wanted to show how casual our science has used these images and not realized the context to which the greater meaning had laid hidden, all the while it is used to "describe cosmology" and the science thereof.

A banner has been been written across these times to which scientists hold to all that is true. In this, the reasons to dismiss any implications of history assigned along side, is asking "what validation" can be given to anything that is spoken from our times now.

I went on in that post, "man looking into space," to explain something about the woodcuts. The art form produced, grabbed my thinking in relation to the "alchemical art forms" and grabs my thinking in regards to the "School of Athens picture."


The Yorck Project: 10.000 Meisterwerke der Malerei. DVD-ROM, 2002. ISBN 3936122202. Distributed by DIRECTMEDIA Publishing GmbH.

I just wanted to say that the essence of this blog post is about "the arches," and I am moving toward that description, and what is happening when we take a picture of them. Look at the "design inherent" and "dynamics" as held to gravity in it's construction. Look at what it can signify in it's "internal expression" about our contact with the world around us. The bridging that it can signify.

I would apologize for leaving this post undone, while views pass by the essence of this post. I am indeed busy with life. So I wanted to clarify this push toward the internal dynamics, while speaking to the psychology of this work.

A scientist may side step this look, while quoting the hermetical values of what may be said by the previous first lady Hillary Clinton. In itself, an empty page, only leaves room for what had to be expressed if it was not gotten the first time? Her attempts at humour, are the attempts to break the "rigidity of the personality?"

The Psychology

Myths and metaphors, like dreams, are powerful tools that draw the listener, dreamer, or reader to a character, symbol, or situation, as if in recognition of something deeply known. Myth's bypass the mind's efforts to divorce information. They make an impression, are remembered, and nudge us to find out what they mean, accounting for the avid interest that Ring audiences have in the meaning of the story.¹

Who has been so colourful in your journeys across the internet to include a wonderful language that takes you into this world of discovery of self? You had to know something about the "psychology of people" in order to give a story by nature, it's mythic description, and "most artful" to draw attention to what lies underneath.

The Alchemists attempted to perfect the One Thing of Hermes, what they called the First Matter, by using specific physical, psychological, and spiritual techniques that they describe in chemical terms and demonstrated in laboratory experiements. However, while the alchemists spoke in terms of chemcials, furaces , flasks, and beakers, they were really talking about the changes taking place within their own bodies, minds, and souls.²

Thus I have given two examples that I had promised sometime back to illustrate some of the "compelling work" that while ancient indeed, is not without it's efforts in todays world. It is the attempt to cross all boundaries, race, gender, and help one to recognize the diversity of the soul with out it's jacket. Shall we call your soul male or female, black or white?

So I am bypassing this, and that has been my message, while the efforts to climb out of the constraints that we have come to recognize within the boundaries of self. Are the realization of the diversity of "all souls" and their time in expression.

Shall we find the excuse to hold ourselves to the thoughts, that while overcoming, the constraints which still exist "within" had to be continually challenged? We have to break the "chains that bind us."

The Arches


Golden Rectangle

I took the picture at a time of day when the tide was at exactly the right place to create this image: when the surface of the water reflected the underside of the bridge and they combined, together they produced what I named the Golden Rectangle as a nod to Pythagoras (my hero). The sensation I experienced at the time was of balancing consciousness and feeling.

It probably seems that it is taking time to get to the essence of this post. IN order to get to the "psychological effect" that I am getting too it important to think of the images of these arches. It is about "each of us" and how we relate to the world. How, the "teacher and student" can exist within the same person.

I point to the Heaven's in the case of the "school of Athens, while Aristotle points to what is on Earth?" Shall we leave no doubt of the "physical things" while we understand that there are more ephemeral qualities to these matter states? That we move continuously between them?



The Inner/Outer World

The drawn of our focus is the external world, but, if we were to connect the internal world with that "external view" how shall we do that. How shall we describe the whole being in this exercise?

Part of this "exchange with reality," is that we can know by continually moving this information "through us" and creating "the space around us," we add to the total view "beyond what was apparent" with just the brain's condensible qualities in neurological display?

By 'dilating' and 'expanding' the scope of our attention we not only discover that 'form is emptiness' (the donut has a hole), but also that 'emptiness is form' (objects precipitate out of the larger 'space') - to use Buddhist terminology. The emptiness that we arrive at by narrowing our focus on the innermost is identical to the emptiness that we arrive at by expanding our focus to the outermost. The 'infinitely large' is identical to the 'infinitesimally small'.The Structure of Consciousness John Fudjack - September, 1999

While I quote above, the second part of the quote adds directly to the understanding. Not only are we "crossing the wires here," we are identifying "a aspect of consciousness" that is continuous.

In this metaphor, when we are seeing the donut as solid object in space, this is like ordinary everyday consciousness. When we see the donut and the hole at its center, this is like a stage of realization in which 'form' is recognized as 'empty'. When we zoom in extremely closely and inspect the 'emptiness' at the center, or zoom out an extreme distance away from the object and the donut seems to disappear and we have only empty space - this is like certain 'objectless' states of awareness that can occur in meditation. But the final goal is not to achieve the undifferentiated state itself; it is to come to the special perspective that allows us to continue to see all three aspects at once - the donut, the whole in the middle, and the space surrounding it - this is like the 'enlightened' state, in this analogy. 10 The innermost and outermost psychological 'space' (which is here a metaphor for 'concentrated attention' and 'diffused attention') are recognized as indeed the same, continuous.

So given "this relationship" on what we can build within self, then what use all this knowledge if we cannot grow with it? What of Plato's and Aristotle, as figures within the "centre of" Raphael's painting. Their perspective, "as positions in relation too," the "questioning stance" about this "unity of the circle" in our exchange with reality?



So how would you exemplify "this exchange" with reality while "below the surface" all these "probable outcomes" are the manifestation of that which is real? You extend yourself "out there" while you also extend yourself inside? The "infinite regress," is to find oneself, with all that is "past" in front of you, can allow you to stand on what of, "the future" will pass through?

First Principle saids that you acknowledge your place in the scheme of things as you "stretch" the thinking of the mind? Increase the "neurological frontier" in those neurological connections? Increase, the fluttering of the egg's feature, of that condensible brain/body.

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.

But, Aristotle thinks that knowledge begins with experience. We get to first principles through induction. But there is no certainty to the generalizations of induction. The "Problem of Induction" is the question How we know when we have examined enough individual cases to make an inductive generalization. Usually we can't know. Thus, to get from the uncertainty of inductive generalizations to the certainty of self-evident first principles, there must be an intuitive "leap," through what Aristotle calls "Mind." This ties the system together. A deductive system from first principles (like Euclidean geometry) is then what Aristotle calls "knowledge" ("epistemê" in Greek or "scientia" in Latin).

From here it would not be to unlikely that such dealings with the "reality of the world" would ask that we experiment and from such experiment, we learn the truth of the reality. While what the past is "in front" of us, to what goes beyond to it's future would be like asking the very nature of expression to manifest as this universe and laws of thermodynamics that the arrow of time only moves one way.

"The future" arises from within then? We'll move forward by what choices we make? About our conclusions, about reality?


¹ Ring of Power, Jean Shinoda Bolen, M.D. Page 3

²The Emerald Tablet, Dennis William Hauck, Chapter 10, Page 151

Whose who, in the School of Athens

I was over visiting Clifford's blog called Asymptotia this morning and notice a blog entry called, Heretics of Alexandria. Of course, what first came to mind is the "Library of Alexandria."



Clifford writes and paraphrases:

This full length drama, set in Alexandria Egypt, 415 A.D. features the infamous Philosopher Hypatia, who has come into possession of a document that threatens the very basis of the new religion called Christianity; a document that some would do anything to destroy. Hypatia and a powerful Christian Bishop wage a fierce struggle for the soul of a young priest and for a document which tells a very different version of the life — and death — of Jesus. A true story.

The writing was excellent as was the cast, and Bastian should be extremely proud of himself. (It is a mistake to call it “a true story”, though. It is a story based around historical events, which should absolutely not be confused with being a “true story”. Writers of synopses should not encouarge people to mix up the two.

So I started to do some research on the link offered by Clifford. All of a sudden I could see the many connections bringing "Hypatia of Alexandria" into the fold.


Hypatia of Alexandria (Greek: Υπατία; c. 370–415) was an ancient philosopher, who taught in the fields of mathematics, astronomy and astrology. She lived in Alexandria, in Hellenistic Egypt.

Hypatia was the daughter of Theon, who was also her teacher and the last fellow of the Musaeum of Alexandria. Hypatia did not teach in the Musaeum, but received her pupils in her own home. Hypatia became head of the Platonist school at Alexandria in about 400. There she lectured on mathematics and philosophy, and counted many prominent Christians among her pupils. No images of her exist, but nineteenth century writers and artists envisioned her as an Athene-like beauty.

Many of you who visit here know how much the "School of Athens" picture means to me?

That there was only one woman here named "Hypatia of Alexandria" of course sent me off to have a look. AS well, "more of the meaning" with regards to the Library of Alexandria.


9.Francesco Maria I della Rovere or Hypatia of Alexandria and Parmenides


The frescoe of the "School of Athens" has been a haunting reminder of the many things that Raphael "enclosed in meaning."


School of Athens by Raphael

That I could then give numbers and names to person's within the picture was equally exciting. I started to dissect parts of this picture quite a while back, opening of course with the "very centre of that painting." The labels supplied on this post entry should give links to farther posts about this.


1: Zeno of Citium or Zeno of Elea? – 2: Epicurus – 3: Frederik II of Mantua? – 4: Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius or Anaximander or Empedocles? – 5: Averroes – 6: Pythagoras – 7: Alcibiades or Alexander the Great? – 8: Antisthenes or Xenophon? – 9: Hypatia or the young Francesco Maria della Rovere? – 10: Aeschines or Xenophon? – 11: Parmenides? – 12: Socrates – 13: Heraclitus (painted as Michelangelo) – 14: Plato holding the Timaeus (painted as Leonardo da Vinci) – 15: Aristotle holding the Ethics – 16: Diogenes of Sinope – 17: Plotinus? – 18: Euclid or Archimedes with students (painted as Bramante)? – 19: Strabo or Zoroaster? – 20: Ptolemy – R: Raphael as Apelles – 21: Il Sodoma as Protogenes

I now realize that with one comment entry gone( maybe both) that I really was not so out of tune. What was Plato's influence on Hypatia of Alexandria?

Letters written to Hypatia by her pupil Synesius give an idea of her intellectual milieu. She was of the Platonic school, although her adherence to the writings of Plotinus, the 3rd century follower of Plato and principal of the neo-Platonic school, is merely assumed.

See also:

No Royal Road to Geometry?

Euclid belonged to the persuasion of Plato and was at home in this philosophy; and this is why he thought the goal of the Elements as a whole to be the construction of the so-called Platonic figures. (Proclus, ed. Friedlein, p. 68, tr. Morrow)

Universal Library

Commerce is of trivial import; love, faith, truth of character, the aspiration of man, these are sacred.Ralph Waldo Emerson

"It is perhaps the oldest university in the world."

Can you imagine if one might have been restricted from the museums of history, based on what another might have thought of the person? To encourage such ideas to blossom, that it is understood the garden has to provide a source from which things can grow. Why not circumvent all views other then one's own, and you shall own those person's too.

If we are to keep one in "ignorance of life" then why not circumvent them to what the world is for them in "their sections and houses on earth? Keep them, to the culture, and not allow for the greater dialogue between these cultures?

While the historical blend here is being extolled, I of course have current thoughts about this in todays world of the internet.


Reconstruction of one of the storage rooms of the Library of Alexandria. From Carl Sagan's Cosmos (1980),

The Royal Library of Alexandria in Alexandria, Egypt, was once the largest library in the world. It is generally thought to have been founded at the beginning of the 3rd century BC, during the reign of Ptolemy II of Egypt. It was likely created after his father had built what would become the first part of the library complex, the temple of the Muses — the Musaion (from which is derived the modern English word museum).

It has been reasonably established that the library, or parts of the collection, were destroyed by fire on a number of occasions (library fires were common enough and replacement of handwritten manuscripts was very difficult, expensive and time-consuming). To this day the details of the destruction (or destructions) remain a lively source of controversy. The Bibliotheca Alexandrina was inaugurated in 2003 near the site of the old library.

Now you know that I believe that the resource for such potentials is very capable in anyone's hands. That if they would like to draw from such a resource, that maybe it has to be physical for them. So, they may go to the library.Yet there is the "sublty of the intangile" that is not accepted by those who are "deeply physical" about what they can accept, so they can accept such libraries.

Then again one might think twice about what is in the library of the internet? Yet, it is not without the "subtleness of the intangible" that we see where the "good thoughts/ideas can issue from the expert and the lay person alike. That such things become part of the library of the internet.

How do we know in our heart when such information is true? That we can rest assure that such dangers of misleading do not take us into their world? Do they some how control you by what they like to hear?

Innatism is a philosophical doctrine introduced by Plato in the socratic dialogue Meno which holds that the mind is born with ideas/knowledge, and that therefore the mind is not a tabula rasa at birth. It asserts therefore that not all knowledge is obtained from experience and the senses. Innatism is the opposite of empiricism.

Plato claimed that humans are born with ideas/forms in the mind that are in a dormant state. He claimed that we have acquired these ideas prior to our birth when we existed as souls in the world of Forms. To access these, humans need to be reminded of them through proper education and experience.

Or are we gifted with this innatism about what is good in all people, while there are those who would become rich by such restrictions of a "software selection."

The French librarian Gabriel Naudé wrote:

And therefore I shall ever think it extreamly necessary, to collect for this purpose all sorts of books, (under such precautions, yet, as I shall establish) seeing a Library which is erected for the public benefit, ought to be universal; but which it can never be, unlesse it comprehend all the principal authors, that have written upon the great diversity of particular subjects, and chiefly upon all the arts and sciences; [...] For certainly there is nothing which renders a Library more recommendable, then when every man findes in it that which he is in search of

I mean, if we were restricted to the ability to retrieve from the massive amounts of data being presented, do you think it a good thing to restrict people from being able to develope their intellect? Learn more?

Below the Surface is a Pattern

Stephen Hawking:

However, by using "matter/antimatter annihilation", velocities just below the speed of light could be reached, making it possible to reach the next star in about six years.

While I presented the "break through in propulsion system" used for space travel by explaining the ideas behind Susskind's "thought experiment." It is with that thinking, one can go back and re-assess what we had thought about "time travel" and such?

Some say it is like conscience effort of reflection? That we go back to the "memory reservoir (where is it-a space between the neurons?)" a "QFT realization" and drag it back up from the field to focalized surface awareness imaging, as some feature of this "time travel scenarion" currently being talk about in spacetime geometrics as warpage? As "an analogy" of the "negative aspect" of conscience?

What is this Inductive/deductive feature then of consciousness?



What is Toposense? A struggle between "discreteness and continuity?" On "large scale" we get "the jest" I think.

It's a problem though, when it becomes chaotic and complex. An "entropic" realization. As if "arrow of time" goes forward, then how is it memory can be retrieved? Or that what exists "in" the blackhole can be used to ascertain what is going on inside and adjust for the "gravitational attraction" outside?"

Perplexities of the theoretical mind

Is mind, the "brain organ?" Did "mind" evolve "according to" the brain organ? If this is so, then what new "appendage" is currently being developed now? What "attribute of mind" will define it?

I'm theoretically challenged. :)

Or, does mind "evolve" the brain matters? If this is so, then "mind" is ahead of the brain matters? What new appendage is formed depends on the mind's development?

It's as if there was another stage "before" the spacetime fabric? :) That the spacetime fabric is "the result."

Raphael the Painter

By 'dilating' and 'expanding' the scope of our attention we not only discover that 'form is emptiness' (the donut has a hole), but also that 'emptiness is form' (objects precipitate out of the larger 'space') - to use Buddhist terminology. The emptiness that we arrive at by narrowing our focus on the innermost is identical to the emptiness that we arrive at by expanding our focus to the outermost. The 'infinitely large' is identical to the 'infinitesimally small'.The Structure of Consciousness John Fudjack - September, 1999

Self-portrait by Raphael

While I am no great philosopher, the idea of truth was very important one to me. Finding some method by which to proceed was very difficult without the teachers handy. So I learned to trust my intuition as I was lead from one place to another. By it's own design, the correlation I termed in relation to cognition were very important discover about my own potential. I had to symbolically discribe the very actions of what goes in, and what comes out, turns through that channel in much the same way a electromagnetic field governs by analogy the principle of life around the human body, as information passes through the center.

If conceived as a series of ever-wider experiential contexts, nested one within the other like a set of Chinese boxes, consciousness can be thought of as wrapping back around on itself in such a way that the outermost 'context' is indistinguishable from the innermost 'content' - a structure for which we coined the term 'liminocentric'.

Will this become part of the greater complexity of the life form, as information becomes part of the larger context of the souls growth? How is that measured? How is t external world brought back in and then turned outward, and the "colors change" as the truth begins to dawn?

For me the story here starts with a painter and from the very painting itself, one can imagine a larger story unfolding, as one peers into the center of the School of Athens.

For now, the music is set aside, for the "foundational perspective" that issues forth from this blog.



I added this biography of the artist himself and "crunched" behind him is a speculation of a kind that becomes the basis of this bloggery. It is about observation and the search for truth as we look at the work of Raphael and the following information that I hold in consideration of this painting.

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.

Do we know what Raphael was trying to impart through these images?

Inductive and Deductive

While holding the School of Athens by Raphael then picture in mind and consider the following?

Aristotle from a a posteriori leads perspective in one way, and Plato a prior?

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"

So from that basis look at what is portrayed in the opening statement above with regards to Plato finger pointing up and Aristotle's hand sweeping pervasively?

So while I lead one through a vast maze of links here it is not without doing my own research that I could now point you to wikipedia for examination of the many things that we could learn of Plato. Imagine Plato continues to live through all this information?

Without Plato a a personification of the some of the ideals I have, I know who I am. The sun as a symbol of enlightenement? Then following, Plato's Cave Analogy?

As a beginning, you see I started to point out some of the more important features of the leadng perspective of Aristotle, and the link I see to Robert Laughlins building blocks of matter?

But before I jump so far ahead, maybe it is indeed useful to link wiki here so one gets the jest of what may be implied by an example?

Epistemology or theory of knowledge is the branch of philosophy that studies the nature and scope of knowledge. The term "epistemology" is based on the Greek words "επιστημη or episteme" (knowledge) and "λόγος or logos" (account/explanation); it is thought to have been coined by the Scottish philosopher James Frederick Ferrier.

Much of the debate in this field has focused on analyzing the nature of knowledge and how it relates to similar notions such as truth, belief, and justification. It also deals with the means of production of knowledge, as well as skepticism about different knowledge claims. In other words, epistemology primarily addresses the following questions: "What is knowledge?", "How is knowledge acquired?", and "What do people know?". Although approaches to answering any one of these questions frequently involve theories that are connected to others, there is enough particular to each that they may be examined separately.

There are many different topics, stances, and arguments in the field of epistemology. Recent studies have dramatically challenged centuries-old assumptions, and the discipline therefore continues to be vibrant and dynamic.

So while some would point to the very functions of perceiving aspects of the higher self, if there is such a thing accept in one conceptual framework, or messages from God, as Ramanujan received the equations in dream time. I think of this as a very dynamical process, that each of us possesses. If without the teacher to guide us, then the teacher most certainly makes it's way into the mind for observation?

Innatism

Innatism is a philosophical doctrine introduced by Plato in the socratic dialogue Meno which holds that the mind is born with ideas/knowledge, and that therefore the mind is not a tabula rasa at birth. It asserts therefore that not all knowledge is obtained from experience and the senses. Innatism is the opposite of empiricism.

Plato claimed that humans are born with ideas/forms in the mind that are in a dormant state. He claimed that we have acquired these ideas prior to our birth when we existed as souls in the world of Forms. To access these, humans need to be reminded of them through proper education and experience.

While it is referred to the young born into this world, what said that any person could not become that "blank slate" that would allow the wider perspective of what has been lived, is not confined to this life, but is exposed as that channel is opened for the wider perspective about life?

I say,"

I mean really, if, each of us is born into this world with such a blank slate, then how is an idea incorporated into such a design of our blank slate. Especially, if there had not been some influence predisposed, to draw ideas into the appropriate environment for consideration?

While we provide for the nurturing aspect of creativity to express itself, we find that such freedoms are encouraged by observation of the introspective attitude we gain by learning about ourselves.

The Medicine Wheel as a Mandala



It is not so much that we learn about the very "drawing here for you" but that it is circular in nature, and by the very discription the mandala is pretty "clear cut" as to what manifested from a deeper level in my own mind.

Now what you do not understand is that the center is very important feature on what we focus on. While the "purity of thought" is presented here. It is the idea that the closer to the source you get, the purer the thought/idea that manifests into the theoretical world.

While I attempt to explain the process this does not disavow you from experimenting and testing, so that the advancement of knowledge and understanding reawakens you to the "nature" of one's being? What is this?

Numerical Relativity and Math Transference

Part of the advantage of looking at computer animations is knowing that the basis of this vision that is being created, is based on computerized methods and codes, devised, to help us see what Einstein's equations imply.

Now that's part of the effort isn't it, when we see the structure of math, may have also embued a Dirac, to see in ways that ony a good imagination may have that is tied to the abstractions of the math, and allows us to enter into "their portal" of the mind.

NASA scientists have reached a breakthrough in computer modeling that allows them to simulate what gravitational waves from merging black holes look like. The three-dimensional simulations, the largest astrophysical calculations ever performed on a NASA supercomputer, provide the foundation to explore the universe in an entirely new way.

According to Einstein's math, when two massive black holes merge, all of space jiggles like a bowl of Jell-O as gravitational waves race out from the collision at light speed.

Previous simulations had been plagued by computer crashes. The necessary equations, based on Einstein's theory of general relativity, were far too complex. But scientists at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., have found a method to translate Einstein's math in a way that computers can understand.

Already having this basis of knowledge availiable, it was important to see what present day research has done for us, as we look at these images and allow them to take us into the deep space as we construct measures to the basis of what GR has done for us in a our assumptions of the events in the cosmo.

But it is more then this for me, as I asked the question, on the basis of math? I have enough links here to show the diversity of experience created from mathematical structures to have one wonder how indeed is th efinite idealization of imagination as a endless resource? You can think about livers if you likeor look at the fractorialization of the beginning of anythng and wonder I am sure.

That has been the question of min in regards to a condense matter theorist who tells us about the bulding blocks of matter can be anything. Well, in this case we are using "computer codes" to simulate GR from a mathematical experience.

So you see now don't you?:)

Is Math Invented or Discovered?

The question here was one of some consideration, as I wondered, how anyone could have delved into the nature of things and come out with some mathematcial model? Taken us along with the predecessors of endowwment thinking(imagination). To develope new roads. They didn't have to be 6 0r 7 roads Lubos, just a assumation. Sort of like, taking stock of things.

So I may ask, "what are the schematics of nature" and the build up starts from some place. Way back, before the computer modeling and such. A means, by which we will give imagination the tools to carry on.

So the journey began way back and the way in which such models lead our perspectives is the "overlay" of what began here in the postulates and moved on into other worldy abstractions?

This first postulate says that given any two points such as A and B, there is a line AB which has them as endpoints. This is one of the constructions that may be done with a straightedge (the other being described in the next postulate).

Although it doesn't explicitly say so, there is a unique line between the two points. Since Euclid uses this postulate as if it includes the uniqueness as part of it, he really ought to have stated the uniqueness explicitly.

The last three books of the Elements cover solid geometry, and for those, the two points mentioned in the postulate may be any two points in space. Proposition XI.1 claims that if part of a line is contained in a plane, then the whole line is. In the books on plane geometry, it is implicitly assumed that the line AB joining A to B lies in the plane of discussion.

One would have to know that the history had been followed here to what it is today.

Where Non-euclidean geometry began, and who were the instigators of imaginitive spaces now that were to become very dynamic in the xyzt direction.

All those who have written histories bring to this point their account of the development of this science. Not long after these men came Euclid, who brought together the Elements, systematizing many of the theorems of Eudoxus, perfecting many of those of Theatetus, and putting in irrefutable demonstrable form propositions that had been rather loosely established by his predecessors. He lived in the time of Ptolemy the First, for Archimedes, who lived after the time of the first Ptolemy, mentions Euclid. It is also reported that Ptolemy once asked Euclid if there was not a shorter road to geometry that through the Elements, and Euclid replied that there was no royal road to geometry. He was therefore later than Plato's group but earlier than Eratosthenes and Archimedes, for these two men were contemporaries, as Eratosthenes somewhere says. Euclid belonged to the persuasion of Plato and was at home in this philosophy; and this is why he thought the goal of the Elements as a whole to be the construction of the so-called Platonic figures. (Proclus, ed. Friedlein, p. 68, tr. Morrow)

These picture above, belongs to a much larger picture housed in the Raphael rooms in Rome. This particular picture many are familiar with as I use part of it as my profile picture. It is called the "Room of the Segnatura."



The point is, that if you did not know of the "whole picture" you would have never recognized it's parts?

String Theory Landscape

The theory of strings predicts that the universe might occupy one random "valley" out of a virtually infinite selection of valleys in a vast landscape of possibilities

Quantum Effect, however allow a manifold to change state abruptly at some point-to tunnel through the intervening ridge to a nearby lower valley.

By Raphael Bousso and Joseph Polchinski, Scientific America, Beyond Einstein, September 2004

One has to keep in mind what these bubble universe stand for, and how they can existas bubbles within bubbles. Such topological formation would then seem strange wouldn't it, if, the tree analogy was taken to mean that each bubble could tunnel into one another as some relation is drawn "overtop" of Feynman's toy model?

Physically, the effect can be interpreted as an object moving from the "false vacuum" (where = 0) to the more stable "true vacuum" (where = v). Gravitationally, it is similar to the more familiar case of moving from the hilltop to the valley. In the case of Higgs field, the transformation is accompanied with a "phase change", which endows mass to some of the particles.

See Also: Unstable Universes: guest blog