A Superset Universe?

How would you draw a Universe with all theories as being part of,  as a subset?

Pictorial representations can be very useful in presenting information or assisting reasoning. Venn diagram is an example. Venn diagrams are used to represent classes of objects, and they can also assist us in reasoning about the relations between these classes. They are named after the English mathematician John Venn (1834 - 1923), who was a fellow at Cambridge University.

A few may have taken in the link supplied to a lecture given by Thomas Campbell with regard to his MBT book he had written. Now, I was drawn to the idea of a Venn diagram presented in his lecture and the idea of how one might have use this diagram as a question about the universe and it's subsets? How would you draw it?

I give a current posting by Sean Carroll with regards to his opinion on a book written by Lawrence Krauss. So there all these theories about the nature of the universe and some scientists of course have their opinions.

............Or not, of course. We should be good empiricists and be open to the possibility that what we think of as the universe really does exist within some larger context. But then we could presumably re-define that as the universe, and be stuck with the same questions. As long as you admit that there is more than one conceivable way for the universe to be (and I don’t see how one could not), there will always be some end of the line for explanations. I could be wrong about that, but an insistence that “the universe must explain itself” or some such thing seems like a completely unsupportable a priori assumption. (Not that anyone in this particular brouhaha seems to be taking such a stance.) SEE:A Universe from Nothing?

Physicists have proposed several theories to explain why Λ is so small. One of the most popular -- the "anthropic principle" -- states that Λ is randomly set and has very different values in different parts of the universe (figure 1). We happen to live in a rare region, or "bubble", where Λ has the value we observe. This value has allowed stars, planets and therefore life to develop. However, this theory is also unsatisfactory for many scientists because it would be better to be able to calculate Λ from first principles.

See also:

• Plinko Sounds a Bit like the Galton Board

• Justified true belief

• Memories Arise Out of a Equilibrium

Artifacts in the Exploration of Geometry

Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, UK

It should not be lost on individuals who have followed this blog, that there is a range of connection to Platonic Forms idealization, that such an artifact in Ashmolean Museum although modeled to represent a reality and constituent forming basis, it is by this choice,  that I exercised a" foundational attitude"  about what I can use to push my own perspective forward in science. What others were using.

"The Artist and his Museum"

The first public showing of the mastodon (also known as the "Mammoth", the American incognitum and the "animal de l'Ohio") took place next door to Independence Hall, the building in which both the Declaration of Independence and Constitution were finalized. The venue, known variously as Peale's Museum, the American Museum or simply as The Museum, was the remarkable product of a resourceful, versatile and passionate artist and showman, Charles Wilson Peale.

Peale (1741-1827) was born and raised in Maryland. A vocal opponent of the Stamp Act, he was effectively driven from his first trade, saddle making, when loyalist merchants cut off his credit. He turned to a traveling life of a self-taught, itinerant portrait painter. After a short apprenticeship with Benjamin West in London, Peale returned to Maryland in 1769 to paint wealthy patrons throughout the Chesapeake region.
In 1776 he moved to the largest city of the colonies, Philadelphia, in the hopes of further developing his career. Through his contacts made while serving as a captain of the Continental Army, Peale painted a remarkable assemblage of Revolutionary War figures, including the most comprehensive portrait series ever painted of George Washington. See:Charles Willson Peale's Museum

After doing quite a bit of reading over the years it is surprising what one can come across as they look at the historical perspective with artifacts which sat on shelves to curious onlookers as they examine these items.

Shown here are the models in the mathematical wunderkammer located in the Department of Mathematics at the University of Arizona. Like those in most modern mathematics departments, the collection is a combination of locally-made student and faculty projects together with a variety of commercially produced models. Sadly, a century since their Golden Age, many of the models are in disrepair and much of their documentation has been lost. However, some recent detective work, with the help of the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, has helped the department identify models by the American educators W. W. Ross and R. P. Baker in the collection.

Also see here for further thoughts on this




So you have in fact "forerunners of museums today" revealed in pursuits by individuals to catalog items according to the range of professions and undertakings. In this case, I was interested on geometrical forms as it was some interest to me that we could move our minds around in abstract spaces . I followed the surfaces of "dynamic movement"  issued forth by theoretical application. These would be,  modular forms or Genus figures of string theory, that raised my interest about the space we are working in.

Sylvester's models lay hidden away for a long time, but recently the Mathematical Institute received a donation to rescue some of them. Four of these were carefully restored by Catherine Kimber of the Ashmolean Museum and now sit in an illuminated glass cabinet in the Institute Common Room.

Now you must know that I do not have the education of the universities but this did not stop me from trying to understand what these artifacts in geometry actually represented. Where they were placed by theoreticians to represent the figurative evolution of what actual begins in this universe, from beyond time and space and arrived to a direction of expressions unfolding in the arrow of time. This was a recognition of the times in microseconds that had been "used in minutes" of Steven Weinberg.

A giddy craze was sweeping across Europe at the turn of the 17th century. The wealthy and the well-connected were hoarding things—strange things—into obsessive personal collections. Starfish, forked carrots, monkey teeth, alligator skins, phosphorescent minerals, Indian canoes, and unicorn tails were acquired eagerly and indiscriminately. Associations among these objects, if they were made at all, often reflected a collector's personal vision of an underlying natural "order". Critical taxonomy was rarely in evidence.

So this historical perspective of the artifacts moved my perspective to today and what is going on in mathematical abstraction. What are these shapes actually representing in reality? Is there such a thing once perception has been granted of the close correlative function of the description of that microscopic reality?

It would be that the mind has become capable of moving into the realm of the microscopic, that by measure of energy used, details the plethora of particle and constituents of that energy, that each artifact is leading toward ever finer issues of what began in the formation of the matter, to allow us to see it's constitutions as they are revealed today macroscopically.

Heralded from the 21st Century: String Theory

I know not how, may find their way to the minds of humanity in Some Dimensionality, and may stir up a race of rebels who shall refuse to be confined to limited Dimensionality." from Flatland, by E. A. Abbott

It is sometimes important to know what race of rebels had been raised to realize that such a revolution in the making had started from a place of thinking that many others
began to think about as well?

Cycle of Birth, Life, and Death-Origin, Indentity, and Destiny by Gabriele Veneziano

In one form or another, the issue of the ultimate beginning has engaged philosophers and theologians in nearly every culture. It is entwined with a grand set of concerns, one famously encapsulated in an 1897 painting by Paul Gauguin: D'ou venons-nous? Que sommes-nous? Ou allons-nous? "Where do we come from? What are we? Where are we going?"

See here for more information.

It is important to know where such models began to influence the idea to generate theoretical model for an apprehension of how we view this universe? Given the study at hand here are the following people for consideration.

Whence began this journey and revolution?

LEONARD SUSSKIND:

And I fiddled with it, I monkeyed with it. I sat in my attic, I think for two months on and off. But the first thing I could see in it, it was describing some kind of particles which had internal structure which could vibrate, which could do things, which wasn't just a point particle. And I began to realize that what was being described here was a string, an elastic string, like a rubber band, or like a rubber band cut in half. And this rubber band could not only stretch and contract, but wiggle. And marvel of marvels, it exactly agreed with this formula.
I was pretty sure at that time that I was the only one in the world who knew this.

So we have to take stock of the movements that change democratic societies. To have found such governments will change and fall according to the plight of it's citizens in science. As it goes with "theoretical positions?"

Working to understand the development of the model in consideration was needed in order for one to understand why Lee Smolin methodology to work science from a historical perspective is one I favour as well. It is sometimes necessary to list these developmental phases in order to get to a position to speak with authority. Find that "with certainty" we can make certain comments? Find, we must be confronted again, to say, any progress will go from There.

The Revolution that Didn't Happen by Steven Weinberg

I first read Thomas Kuhn's famous book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions a quarter-century ago, soon after the publication of the second edition. I had known Kuhn only slightly when we had been together on the faculty at Berkeley in the early 1960s, but I came to like and admire him later, when he came to MIT. His book I found exciting.

Evidently others felt the same. Structure has had a wider influence than any other book on the history of science. Soon after Kuhn's death in 1996, the sociologist Clifford Geertz remarked that Kuhn's book had "opened the door to the eruption of the sociology of knowledge" into the study of the sciences. Kuhn's ideas have been invoked again and again in the recent conflict over the relation of science and culture known as the science wars.

So we know where the idea of science wars began do we not? What instigates conflict as a healthy perspective to progress of the sciences. We will see the story unfold within this blog.

For some reason people might of thought my views were just held to Lee Smolin and the work that I had been accumulating with regards to his views of the Universe. While I had shown the cover of his book countless times, I would like to say that I have accumulated "other books," like those of Brian Greene as well.

Does this make me an expert on the subject in question or what ever Lee Smolin has written? Of course not.

But the work I have been doing, has not been limited to what the authors themself have given to the public in their outreach writing books. I have been at this a few years now, so I would like people to think this is not just a jaunt of journalism, that has been given to the public in it's books but has been a labour of love to understand my place in the universe.

The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory

The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory (ISBN 0-375-70811-1) is a book by Brian Greene published in 2000 which introduces string theory and provides a comprehensive though non-technical assessment of the theory and some of its shortcomings.

Beginning with a brief consideration of classical physics, which concentrates on the major conflicts in physics, Greene establishes an historical context for string theory as a necessary means of integrating the probabilistic world of the standard model of particle physics and the deterministic Newtonian physics of the macroscopic world. Greene discusses the essential problem facing modern physics: unification of Einstein's theory of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Greene suggests that string theory is the solution to these two conflicting approaches. Greene uses frequent analogies and mental experiments to provide a means for the layman to come to terms with the theory which has the potential to create a unified theory of physics.

The Elegant Universe was adapted for a three hour program in two parts for television broadcast in late 2003 on the PBS series NOVA.

Thanks Q9 for the link to "Elegant physicist makes string theory sexy." I was going to posted it the day when you gave it to me, but instead seeing that Clifford of Asymptotia had it (same day), I thought I wouldn't. But as fate has it I must.

The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality (2004) is the second book on theoretical physics, cosmology and string theory written by Brian Greene, professor and co-director of Columbia's Institute for Strings, Cosmology, and Astroparticle Physics (ISCAP).[1]

Greene begins with the key question: What is reality? Or more specifically: What is spacetime? He sets out to describe the features he finds both exciting and essential to forming a full picture of the reality painted by modern science. In almost every chapter, Greene introduces its basic concepts and then slowly builds to a climax, which is usually a scientific breakthrough. Greene then attempts to connect with his reader by posing simple analogies to help explain the meaning of a scientific concept without oversimplifying the theory behind it.

In the preface, Greene acknowledges that some parts of the book are controversial among scientists. Greene discusses the leading viewpoints in the main text, and points of contention in the end notes. Greene has striven for balanced treatment of the controversial topics. In the end notes, the diligent reader will find more complete explanations relevant to points he has simplified in the main text.

Once you get this view of the gravitational connection between everything, the form of graviton, you get this preview of the bulk and what lensing may mean. It is hard not to think of "dimensional perspectives in relation to the energy" describing the particles of science in some way. Witten below in his "Strings Unravel" lets you know what string theory has accomplished.

Warped Passages is a book by Lisa Randall, published in 2005, about particle physics in general and additional dimensions of space (cf. Kaluza-Klein theory) in particular. The book has made it to top 50 at amazon.com, making it the world's first successful book on theoretical physics by a female author. See Where are my keys?

It's alway nice having one's own blog and nice that I can retained my dignity under the name of Plato. It keeps my personal life from being treated with disrespect at the whim of the stroke of a delete key. Of course I am willing to take my lumps understanding such a role as "older student." After being expose to the exchange between people in the tribe, it's thinking can do all kinds of damage to each other? But I would like to think that all sides remain cool to positions they hold in society

A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down by Robert B. LaughlinFrom the Publisher:

Why everything we think about fundamental physical laws needs to change, and why the greatest mysteries of physics are not at the ends of the universe but as close as the nearest ice cube or grain of salt.

Not since Richard Feynman has a Nobel Prize-winning physicist written with as much panache as Robert Laughlin does in this revelatory and essential book. Laughlin proposes nothing less than a new way of understanding fundamental laws of science. In this age of superstring theories and Big-Bang cosmology, we're used to thinking of the unknown as being impossibly distant from our everyday lives. The edges of science, we're told, lie in the first nanofraction of a second of the Universe's existence, or else in realms so small that they can't be glimpsed even by the most sophisticated experimental techniques. But we haven't reached the end of science, Laughlin argues-only the end of reductionist thinking. If we consider the world of emergent properties instead, suddenly the deepest mysteries are as close as the nearest ice cube or grain of salt. And he goes farther: the most fundamental laws of physics-such as Newton's laws of motion and quantum mechanics -are in fact emergent. They are properties of large assemblages of matter, and when their exactness is examined too closely, it vanishes into nothing.

See Laughlin, Reductionism, Emergence

Out of all this uncertainty that exists at the level with which we think about in "those dimensions" what value any constructive diagram if it did not lead you to the understanding of the building blocks that a condense matter theorist may describe as manifesting in our reality?

The Year is 2020 and that's our Eyesight

Columbia physicist Brian Greene inhabits a multiple-perspective landscape modeled after M.C. Escher's artwork in a scene from "The Elegant Universe," a public-TV documentary based on Greene's book.

Q: Hawking has said that there could be a “theory of everything” produced in the next 20 years, or by 2020. Do you get that same sense? Or will there ever be a theory of everything?

A: Well, I always find it difficult to make predictions that are tied to a specific time frame, because as we all know, one of the exciting things about science is that you don’t know when the big break is going to happen. It could happen tomorrow, it could happen 10 years from now, it could happen a century from now. So you just keep pressing on, making progress, and hope that you reach these major milestones — ideally in your own lifetime, but who knows? So I don’t know if 2020 is the right number to say. But I would say that string theory has a chance of being that unified theory, and we are learning more and more about it. Every day, every week, every month there are fantastically interesting developments.

Will it all come together by 2020, where we can actually have experimental proof and the theory develops to the point that it really makes definitive statements that can be tested? I don’t know. I hope so. But hope is not the thing that determines what will actually happen. It’s the hard work of scientists around the world.

But anyway onto what I wanted to say and "being censored" I couldn't.

Clifford is defending his position on how Lee Smolin and Peter Woit have assigned a "perspective view" to string theory as a modelled approach. As a theoretical discovery of science, Clifford from my view, had to show that this process is still unfolding and that any quick decision as to giving String theory such a final vote of opinion from Lee Smolin was premature. I have supported Clifford in this view because of where we had been historically in the past years that the formulation of string theory has been given.

D-Branes by Clifford V. Johnson

D-branes represent a key theoretical tool in the understanding of strongly coupled superstring theory and M-theory. They have led to many striking discoveries, including the precise microphysics underlying the thermodynamic behaviour of certain black holes, and remarkable holographic dualities between large-N gauge theories and gravity. This book provides a self-contained introduction to the technology of D-branes, presenting the recent developments and ideas in a pedagogical manner. It is suitable for use as a textbook in graduate courses on modern string theory and theoretical particle physics, and will also be an indispensable reference for seasoned practitioners. The introductory material is developed by first starting with the main features of string theory needed to get rapidly to grips with D-branes, uncovering further aspects while actually working with D-branes. Many advanced applications are covered, with discussions of open problems which could form the basis for new avenues of research.

While Clifford's book I do not have, I understand that the "second revolution" was necessary to help us move to consider where string theory was to take us. It was progressing in the theoretics as a model to help us see science assuming the ways in which such models adjust us to possible new views in science. Clifford may not of liked the implication of a Grokking of a kind that would refer to consuming model approaches and then becoming what you eat?

Clifford:

I’ve found that different people have different takes on what it means to have a “theory of everything”. There is a popular idea (perhaps the most common) that this somehow means that this theory will describe (at least in principle) all known basic physical phenomena (constituents and their interactions, if you like) once and for all. Others mean something less ambitious, a theory that consistently describes the four fundamental forces and the things that interact with them, achieving a unification of all the forces and phenomena that we currently understand. I personally think that the first idea of a theory of everything is rather naive, and my personal hunch (and bias from what I’ve learned about the history of science) is that there is simply no such thing.

So of course entertaining the idea of a "theory of everything" leaves a bad taste in some peoples mouth, and having them to reason that it is the naivity of such a thought, that I immediately felt insulted. Clifford saids,"this theory will describe (at least in principle) all known basic physical phenomena (constituents and their interactions, if you like) once and for all" and may have been the case for those less then spending the time and effort, would have probably been insulted as I was. I of course came to recognize the positive aspect of the second position Clifford assumes.

Bench Marks of theoretical Progress

Anyway there are positions that we can take when we look back and reassess everything that we have been doing in reading the public outreach, like so called "bench marks" to see if such progressions still have have a evolutionary way to go.

Edward Witten-Reflections on the Fate of Spacetime

Unravelling String Theory

But what is string theory? It may well be the only way to reconcile gravity and quantum mechanics, but what is the core idea behind it? Einstein understood the central concepts of general relativity years before he developed the detailed equations. By contrast, string theory has been discovered in bits and pieces — over a period that has stretched for nearly four decades — without anyone really understanding what is behind it. As a result, every bit that is unearthed comes as a surprise. We still don’t know where all these ideas are coming from — or heading to

See more here



So what shall we use to measure what had first seem so abstract in Susskind's mind as a "rubber band," or the start of Veneziano views on such strings at inception? We've come a long way.

Something that I perceived back in 2004 help to "shape my views on the way I speak" "today" allows for us to consider that strings take it's rightful place within the building blocks of matter, that following Robert Laughlins lead, it was that we shifted our times from the first three seconds of Steven Weinberg, to the "First three Microseconds" of strings within the process of the unfolding universe.

The resulting collisions between pairs of these atomic nuclei generate exceedingly hot, dense bursts of matter and energy to simulate what happened during the first few microseconds of the big bang. These brief "mini bangs" give physicists a ringside seat on some of the earliest moments of creation.

See How Particles Came to be?

While Laughlin may have not seen the continued relevance of particle reductionism it was leading to some amazing insights. I now wonder now, if held to the comparisons of this superfluid, how it would have appealed to him? I think Witten in last plate above recognized what had to be done.

Against Symmetry

The term “symmetry” derives from the Greek words sun (meaning ‘with’ or ‘together’) and metron (‘measure’), yielding summetria, and originally indicated a relation of commensurability (such is the meaning codified in Euclid's Elements for example). It quickly acquired a further, more general, meaning: that of a proportion relation, grounded on (integer) numbers, and with the function of harmonizing the different elements into a unitary whole. From the outset, then, symmetry was closely related to harmony, beauty, and unity, and this was to prove decisive for its role in theories of nature. In Plato's Timaeus, for example, the regular polyhedra are afforded a central place in the doctrine of natural elements for the proportions they contain and the beauty of their forms: fire has the form of the regular tetrahedron, earth the form of the cube, air the form of the regular octahedron, water the form of the regular icosahedron, while the regular dodecahedron is used for the form of the entire universe. The history of science provides another paradigmatic example of the use of these figures as basic ingredients in physical description: Kepler's 1596 Mysterium Cosmographicum presents a planetary architecture grounded on the five regular solids.

The basic difference that I see is the way in which Lee Smolin adopts his views of what science is in relation too, "Two traditions in the search for fundamental Physics."

It is strange indeed to see perfection of Lee Smolin's comparison and having a look further down we understand the opening basis of his philosophical thoughts in regards to the title "against symmetry?"

Some reviews on the "Trouble With Physics," by Lee Smolin

Seed Magazine, August 2006

Time magazine August 21, 2006

Discover Magazine, September 2006 &

Scientific American, September 2006

Wired September 2006:15 :

The Economist, Sept 14, 2006

The New York Times Book review, Sep 17, 2006 by Tom Siegfried

The Boston Globe, Sept 17, 2006

USA Today, Sept 19, 2006

The New York Sun, by Michael Shermer, Sept 27, 2006

The New Yorker,  by Jim Holt Sept 25,2006

The LA Times, by K C Cole, Oct 8, 2006

Nature,

by George Ellis (Nature 44, 482, 5 Oct. 2006)

San Fransisco Chronicle , by Keay Davidson, Oct 13, 2006

Dallas Morning News, by FRED BORTZ, Oct 15, 2006

Toronto Star, by PETER CALAMAI, Oct 15, 2006

But before I begin in that direction I wanted people to understand something that is held in the mind of the "condense matter theorist." In terms of the building blocks of nature. This is important basis of understanding, that any building block could emergent from anything, we had to identify where this symmetry existed, before it manifested in the "matter states of reality."

Everyone knows that human societies organize themselves. But it is also true that nature organizes itself, and that the principles by which it does this is what modern science, and especially modern physics, is all about. The purpose of my talk today is to explain this idea.

So it is important to understand what is emergent and what exists in the "theory of everything" if it did not consider the context of symmetry? AS a layman trying to get underneath the thinking process of any book development, it is important to me.

Symmetry considerations dominate modern fundamental physics, both in quantum theory and in relativity. Philosophers are now beginning to devote increasing attention to such issues as the significance of gauge symmetry, quantum particle identity in the light of permutation symmetry, how to make sense of parity violation, the role of symmetry breaking, the empirical status of symmetry principles, and so forth. These issues relate directly to traditional problems in the philosophy of science, including the status of the laws of nature, the relationships between mathematics, physical theory, and the world, and the extent to which mathematics dictates physics.

The idea here then is to find super strings place within context of the evolving universe, in terms of, "the microseconds" and not the "first three minutes" of Steven Weinberg.

So it is important to see the context with which this discussion is taking place, in terms of the high energy and from that state of existence to what entropically manifests into the universe now.

Confronting A Position Adopted By Lee Smolin


A sphere with three handles (and three holes), i.e., a genus-3 torus.

This is only "one point of contention" that was being addressed at Clifford Johnson's Asymptotia.

Jacques Distler :

This is false. The proof of finiteness, to all orders, is in quite solid shape. Explicit formulæ are currently known only up to 3-loop order, and the methods used to write down those formulæ clearly don’t generalize beyond 3 loops.

What’s certainly not clear (since you asked a very technical question, you will forgive me if my response is rather technical) is that, beyond 3 loops, the superstring measure over supermoduli space can be “pushed forward” to a measure over the moduli space of ordinary Riemann surfaces. It was a nontrivial (and, to many of us, somewhat surprising) result of d’Hoker and Phong that this does hold true at genus-2 and -3.

There is no doubt that the "timeliness of statements" can further define, support or not, problems that are being discussed. I don't mind being deleted on the point of the post above, because our good scientist's are getting into the heat of things. I am glad Arun stepped up to the plate.

Part of finally coming to some head on debate, was seeing how Peter Woit along with Lee Smolin were being challlenged for their views, while there had been this ground swell created against a model that was developed, like Loop quantum gravity was developed. One of the two traditions in search for the fundamental physics. Loop qunatum Gravity and String theory(must make sure there is the modification to M theory?) Shall this be included?


Click on link Against symmetry (Paris, June 06)

But as they are having this conversation, it is this openness that they have given of themselves that we learn of the intricacies of the basis of arguments, so the public is better informed as to what follows and what has to take place.


Against symmetry (Paris, June 06)

So while this issue is much more complex then just the exchange there, I have not forgotten what it is all about. Or why one may move from a certain position after they have summarize the views they had accumulated with regards to the subject of String/M theory as a model that has out lived it's usefulness, in terms of not providing a experimental frame work around it.

Is the door open to the eruption of the sociology of knowledge?

Nobody really thinks about the subtle perceptions that can make their way into the scientist's mind? Do they?

While, I had talked about the quiet places we like to go to find that peace of mind, it might be different for each of us? Maybe for Clifford, it is the stream. Maybe for a Witten and his walks, the stream, as well?

I spent a lot of years watching the subtle language that one can draw from the subconscious in dream time and to me such suttle obsersvation while fleeting, it always is a good idea to have a pen and paper alongside of you. Because, it happens that quick sometimes, that if you don't catch it, it sort of leaves the focal front to the tip of the tongue, as a puzzling thought about?

This enlightenment experience is a realization about the nature of the mind which entails recognizing it (in a direct, experiential way) as liminocentrically organized. The overall structure is paradoxical, and so the articulation of this realization will 'transcend' logic - insofar as logic itself is based on the presumption that nested sets are not permitted to loop back on themselves in a non-heirarchical manner. 11

Piercing the veil perhaps?

Some of the things that seem to influence creativity, is the very idea of flow, and sitting by a river, "to think" might be one, or sitting high up on a mountain looking over the landscape, perhaps? Looking deep into "the space of the starry universe" above?



Observation is really important I believe. If I were to say the "space between the heartbeat," it would not have been to unlikely, that the points between something, could ever be reduced to have it seem that our "quantum perception" has revealled a dynamical reality?

Yes it's true. Energy calculations revealled information about the space we are living in? Nothing confusing about that. How silly then, that such a suttle perception as to the cards below would have passed our attention unsignificant?

Anomaly and the Emergence of Scientific Discoveries[/b] Kuhn now moves past his initial topic of paradigm to scientific discovery saying that in order for there to be a discovery, an anomaly must be detected within the field of study. He discusses several different studies and points out the anomaly that invoked the scientific discovery. Later in the chapter he begins to discuss how the anomaly can be incorporated into the discovery to satisfy the scientific community.

There are three different characteristics of all discoveries from which new sorts of phenomena emerge. These three characteristics are proven through an experiment dealing with a deck of cards. The deck consisted of anomalous cards (e.g. the red six of spades shown on the previous page) mixed in with regular cards. These cards were held up in front of students who were asked to call out the card they saw, and in most cases the anomaly was not detected.

Attention and awareness is sometimes like listening "between the heartbeats?" Also if you look at that space what is it then filled with? I had a hard time of it trying to understand what nothing meant. It just does not make sense. Nothing is Nothing, and something out of Nothing is really a hard one to ponder for me so I had to see these dynamics working in ways that would tax the mind visually.



So what did I do?

Why is sound so important in the analogies of science now? Acoustically, what would the science of sound mean in our discriptions of the landscape? How does it change the way we thnk and do, and leads our thinking minds into some kind of entrainment that is rhythmetically enhanced? What does it do for the brain waves? Functional use, done in MRI study, along with the process of thinking?



So I thought I should build a world that leads us to realize the reality we create. You think I did not think of the color of these situations? Look carefully at the ephemeral qualities of mind.

You have to understand that the geometrical realization at the basis of my own experiences were derived from understanding the work of Carl Jung, and the mandalas he talked about.

The way in which he might have divided up the circle according to the way our minds work. Having the anima and animus respectvely in both male and female, what really made me think of the topological function of the mind, are up top, on the enlightenment plate. Balance was needed to be struck and this is done automatically depending on our genders the balance would have been injected accordingly?

If you think for one moment our past history is not important, what use to understand that we continue evolve within our consciousness?

There are such designs from our expierence, to learn? You might have read my views on emotions and experience, and how we cannot change what has already happened, but we can meet the expeirence and change the attitude? That is within our power and ths is what sets up the future.

Proceedings of Societies [Report on the Law of Octaves]

Mr. JOHN A. R. NEWLANDS read a paper entitled "The Law of Octaves, and the Causes of Numerical Relations among the Atomic Weights."[41] The author claims the discovery of a law according to which the elements analogous in their properties exhibit peculiar relationships, similar to those subsisting in music between a note and its octave. Starting from the atomic weights on Cannizzarro's [sic] system, the author arranges the known elements in order of succession, beginning with the lowest atomic weight (hydrogen) and ending with thorium (=231.5); placing, however, nickel and cobalt, platinum and iridium, cerium and lanthanum, &c., in positions of absolute equality or in the same line. The fifty-six elements[42] so arranged are said to form the compass of eight octaves, and the author finds that chlorine, bromine, iodine, and fluorine are thus brought into the same line, or occupy corresponding places in his scale. Nitrogen and phosphorus, oxygen and sulphur, &c., are also considered as forming true octaves. The author's supposition will be exemplified in Table II., shown to the meeting, and here subjoined:--

In this way I sort of felt that a calm mind and a calm heart, would allow one to see the discrepancies better. I do not know if that is the truth of it, but imagine our perception going deeper then it had ever gone before? There had to be some results, from listening?

A Chladni plate consist of a flat sheet of metal, usually circular or square, mounted on a central stalk to a sturdy base. When the plate is oscillating in a particular mode of vibration, the nodes and antinodes set up form a complex but symmetrical pattern over its surface. The positions of these nodes and antinodes can be seen by sprinkling sand upon the plates;

If one moment you thought of the Law of Octaves above, what place "the heart" to serve for our evolving consicousness?

The Revolution that Didn't Happen by Steven Weinberg

I first read Thomas Kuhn's famous book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions1 a quarter-century ago, soon after the publication of the second edition. I had known Kuhn only slightly when we had been together on the faculty at Berkeley in the early 1960s, but I came to like and admire him later, when he came to MIT. His book I found exciting.

Evidently others felt the same. Structure has had a wider influence than any other book on the history of science. Soon after Kuhn's death in 1996, the sociologist Clifford Geertz remarked that Kuhn's book had "opened the door to the eruption of the sociology of knowledge" into the study of the sciences. Kuhn's ideas have been invoked again and again in the recent conflict over the relation of science and culture known as the science wars.

See:

Revolutions for Change

Path With a Heart

orbitals

It wasn't just the scientific ones either, that were shaped by such analogies to future perspectives. If one demanded change in society, what roads would have been taken that all the best things in people would have been exemplified? Maybe, role models, who enshrined the greatest humanistic and ethically valuated system, in regards to the rights and dignities, of it's democratic people?

Thomas Kuhn

However, the incommensurability thesis is not Kuhn's only positive philosophical thesis. Kuhn himself tells us that “The paradigm as shared example is the central element of what I now take to be the most novel and least understood aspect of [The Structure of Scientific Revolutions]” (1970a, 187). Nonetheless, Kuhn failed to develop the paradigm concept in his later work beyond an early application of its semantic aspects to the explanation of incommensurability. 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.

There is no secret that I endeavor to see differently of all that we currently see now. This would have been under the auspice of scientific validation. Because we see science expressed in a different theoretcial light, do we discard the process for what Postdiction means?

Here in this Blog, it is by my attempting to understand the process that I have been lead to the experimental basis, of what Lubos and Nima offer for us reading about what we may find in the LHC collisions.

At this site you will find the new black boxes and calibration samples for the LHC Olympics! See:Instead of the Pea, What New Paradigm?

It is very complex indeed that such particle tracings would have been deducted from level of understanding that our view would have quickly changed too? Where had we been brought to now? :)

Gluonic plasma perception holds a interesting new plateau for consideration and D Brane considerations what role do they play? Ask Peter?

The Revolution that Didn't Happen by Steven Weinberg

I first read Thomas Kuhn's famous book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions1 a quarter-century ago, soon after the publication of the second edition. I had known Kuhn only slightly when we had been together on the faculty at Berkeley in the early 1960s, but I came to like and admire him later, when he came to MIT. His book I found exciting.

Evidently others felt the same. Structure has had a wider influence than any other book on the history of science. Soon after Kuhn's death in 1996, the sociologist Clifford Geertz remarked that Kuhn's book had "opened the door to the eruption of the sociology of knowledge" into the study of the sciences. Kuhn's ideas have been invoked again and again in the recent conflict over the relation of science and culture known as the science wars.

I often hear some scientists speak of the "denigration of true science" by the intrusion of philosophical perspective. Does science by it's nature not move it's perspective into the issues of morality and ethics, as well as the political process? :)

Time

You need a "Axion point" to derive symmetry breaking from equilibrium? Hmmmmm..... I'm thinking here.

The idea is taking the first three minutes and moving it to the first three seconds and that's where strings come in...

I must warn you though, that the model of superstrngs is facing strong opposition today because is does not have the scienctific proof and validation that any model should have. On this basis alone ,it is being challenged.

One must remember though, that it has a strong theoretcial structure that will remain incomprehensible to most, to me, that I have only the faintest ideas as to the complexity of the math structures.

Part of this insight is to take macroscopic views and have them reduced to microperspective views while looking about the every structure of this universe. So they use the LHC/RhIC reference for analogies as to what happens in those very beginnings.

The overcoming incompatibility relationship between quantum mechanics and relativity has been the goal, and in this theoretcial structure, this has been accomplished.

Brian Greene

Time is far more subtle than our everyday experience would lead us to believe. In many ways, time may simply be a psychological construct for organizing the world. It is a device we scientists have found useful, but it may in fact be a dim approximation of something far more complex."

Einstein in his bold statements about a pretty girl helped to direct our attention to the fleeting moments. It was last years tribute to Einstein and Beyond that helped many in dfferent perspectves and of time bring us back to what this man did for us.

Kaluza and Klein helped to push this perspective further. Some debate this model as well, yet I do not know many who have advnaced our thinking from the geometrical inclinations as Einstein did for us when he attributed time to the spacetime realization of what Gravity does for us.

The spacetime fabric became something more then the very impression that mass would reveal of itself. Energy, had a relationship in this, and yet, we are drawn to the very implication of where two diffwerent points could have ever told us that spacetime is flat. Where is this? I have given three cases where this is possible, and I have given theoretical valuation to what strings have done for us, in our microscopic view of this universe.

You had to follow strings through the theoretcical developement assigned, in or colliders. What was the result of microstate blackhole production? HE⁴ or lagrange points between the earth, moon and sun?



You had to know what theoretical associations had been marrried to scientific progress. If you have somebody who denounces and rejects the model how would you have ever thought to unite flat space, with reality models?

This is the interesting thing about choosing models, is that experimental processes are not as devoid as those whose main goal was to affront string theory, was to announce this renunciation without ever understanding it's implications.



Setting up such a wall(Peter Woit) was a disservice to those who wanted to explore this theoretical structure. It's implications, as to the first three seconds of our universe. Steven Weinberg laid it out for us in the first three minutes, why not a more introspective view in the consequences of this universe borne to what it is?