Craftsman of Plato

Time is of your own making;
its clock ticks in your head.
The moment you stop thought
time too stops dead. Angelus Silesius

See Status of Warp Drive Smolin had some deep questions and relevance "about" time? :)

Some "updates" within this article. Mainly for all those "couch potatoes" who watch Law and Order. I remembered Sean Carroll's portrayal as well on Preposterous Universe when Clifford showed the picture from "the lecture" Clifford is showing today.

Dark Matter and Dark Energy: from the Universe to the Laboratory-Conclusion

See comment here

Good show


Are Cosmologists Couch Potatoes?

Your asking for simplicity and without a geometrical/topological approach(quantum gravity), the cosmos from surveillance and interrogation, and without further introspection, it leaves one with a nice comfortable view, as is.

That's nice, for those who want to sit back and watch the show:)

That fellow, does he have his binoculars backwards!Hmmmmm:)How would this lensing affect his view of the stake out? So close, yet so far away?
plato | Homepage | Mon, February 21, 2005 @ 3:22 pm | #

Maybe Clifford is a Seer? Or, is he a Craftsman who became a seer, like Lee Smolin? Well, we'd have to delve into the reason a seer "became" or could possibly "become?"

The Craftsman

BEHOLDING beauty with the eye of the mind, he will be enabled to bring forth, not images of beauty, but realities, for he has hold not of an image but of a reality, and bringing forth and nourishing true virtue to become the friend of God and be immortal, if mortal man may. Would that be an ignoble life? PLATO

If one had given their whole life to rote and memorization, how much smarter would they be, if they did not allow themselves to be "filled?" It is as if the universe said "look at the emptiness. This cannot be so?" It was at that moment the mind fills with all these "wonderful things" as if all that had taken place was ignited into a new view of the world. It is literally not the same world for them?

Tabula rasa (Latin: scraped tablet or clean slate) refers to the epistemological thesis that individual human beings are born with no innate or built-in mental content, in a word, "blank", and that their entire resource of knowledge is built up gradually from their experiences and sensory perceptions of the outside world. See Tabula rasa: The Glass Room

Predictions? Every tone spoken as if this new change took place, realized, that having enter a part of reality that was somehow away from, yet, existed in the reality until discovered. Coxeter shared these same views? So, every kind of geometry you know of, already exists, and is just waiting to be discovered. You had to be able to tap into the probabilities. You were always preparing the stage.


Timaeus:

Genesis Timaeus 27c-34a

First then, in my judgment, we must make a distinction and ask, What is that which always is and has no becoming; and what is that which is always becoming and never is? That which is apprehended by intelligence and reason is always in the same state; but that which is conceived by opinion with the help of sensation and without reason, is always in a process of becoming and perishing and never really is. Now everything that becomes or is created must of necessity be created by some cause, for without a cause nothing can be created.

See Timaeus:Laying the Ground rules on Genesis

The Mechanism

See "The Cosmological Constant and the String Landscape by Joe Polchinski (UCSB, KITP)"

So one has to take into account the perspective being developed by others before we get to where we have some kind of mechanism of tunnelling the landscape? Is it right or not, to have a "potential hill" have evidence of some kind, having been traverse? You would then think, hmmm... the blackhole as a horizon?

Three Ring Circus: Dark Energy

"Of course this information is based on 2003 data but the jest of the idea here is that in order to go to a "fast forward" the conditions had to exist previously that did not included "sterile neutrinos" and were a result of this "cross over."

What reason did Lee Smolin called the string theorists craftsman? I think part of the fun for me is when somebody who sits out front in terms of being a science director of a kind, then one is immediately thinking "okay, why did he say this."

See The Entropic Principle by Raphael Bousso (UC Berkeley)

Now, why did he say that? Yes, it would be easier to go to him and get the reason right from the person's mouth. But hey their busy, and I do not want to be on the list of those knocking on doors being pesky. Besides, that's part of the fun of doing the detective work and trying to understand the basis of any argument they may have.

The Demiurge (Creator)

Literally, “craftsman.” The creator of Plato’s physical world is not a divine intelligence or a personal ruler, but (as it were) a manual laborer. Cf. Vlastos, Plato’s Universe (pp. 26-27):

That the supreme god of Plato’s cosmos should wear the mask of a manual worker is a triumph of the philosophical imagination over ingrained social prejudice. ... But this divine mechanic is not a drudge. He is an artist or, more precisely, what an artist would have to be in Plato’s conception of art: not the inventor of new form, but the imposer of pre-existing form on as yet formless material.

The Seer

So we now know to a degree how Lee Smolin assigned the Craftsman, but little is said about the Seer? The Seer, is one who knows how to use that blank slate. Knows how to find the departure point and is asking to be filled?

If there are any runners out there, you might know the "depletion point" one can reach after having expended the energy, one gains a sense of this new influx of energy and well being? Having once know these times in my youth, I am sad to say, I am to old to be ever running like I did.

So one sees the community is suffering and leaders in despair as to how new ideas can be generated and new ways to invigorate science come to the forefront. Is the privileged few who see themself pertaining to some model, that one would now say, hey they are getting all the incentives and the idea here about nurture is suffering?

No, there must be special way to invigorate the scientists of the future? Allow them to empty themselves after the intense involvement, to allow the mind, when empty to be filled?

(Thanks Bee for asking the question By the way, "Happy Easter" to you and Stefan)

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)

Johannes Kepler: The Birth of the Universe

I measured the skies, now the shadows I measure,
Sky-bound was the mind, earth-bound the body rests Kepler's epitaph for his own tombstone

I always like to go back as well and learn the historical, for it seems to pave the way for how our good scientists of the day, use these times to begin their talks.

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.

Perhaps on an "asymmetrical recognition" of what becomes the "matter distinctions" of form, from "another world perspective" to what beauty and harmony mean and housed within the definitions of symmetry.

So while you may have been fast track by Lee Smolin in his lecture talk in Paris of 2006, think carefully about what the Platonic tradition means, and what is revealed of the "asymmetrical/entropically challenged views developed from the high energy sector.


Johannes Kepler (December 27, 1571 – November 15, 1630)

For instance, Kepler was explicit about the intellectual safeguards that, in his view, the Christian faith provided for scientific speculation. In connection with the apriorism of the world view of antiquity (a good example is the Platonic dictum Ex nihilo nihil fit—nothing is made from nothing), he wrote: "Christian religion has put up some fences around false speculation in order that error may not rush headlong" (Introduction to Book IV of Epitome astronomae copernicanae, c1620, in Werke Vol. VII p. 254).

So even though Platonic contrast the Pythagorean views, Plato has an idea about what existed before all things manifested. So to think such solids could have made their way into the various forms, what were these descriptions, if not for the very idea of the birth of the universe of Kepler's time?


Kepler's Platonic solid model of the Solar system from Mysterium Cosmographicum (1596)

So in speaking to the information based on symmetries how could one have formed their perspectve and then lined up one line of thought with another?

Philosophically, permutation symmetry has given rise to two main sorts of questions. On the one side, seen as a condition of physical indistinguishability of identical particles (i.e. particles of the same kind in the same atomic system), it has motivated a rich debate about the significance of the notions of identity, individuality, and indistinguishability in the quantum domain. Does it mean that the quantum particles are not individuals? Does the existence of entities which are physically indistinguishable although “numerically distinct” (the so-called problem of identical particles) imply that the Leibniz's Principle of the Identity of Indiscernibles should be regarded as violated in quantum physics? On the other side, what is the theoretical and empirical status of this symmetry principle? Should it be considered as an axiom of quantum mechanics or should it be taken as justified empirically? It is currently taken to explain the nature of fermionic and bosonic quantum statistics, but why do there appear to be only bosons and fermions in the world when the permutation symmetry group allows the possibility of many more types? French and Rickles (2003) offers an eccellent and updated overview of the above and related issues.

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.

What I wanted to Portray in Aristotle and Plato?

On my site you will see that they work together but from different perspectives.

Look at the hand gestures...

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

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

......then read the statement at the very top of the page.

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"

These "archetypes," were very much evident in the relation of Gell-Mann and Feynman?



This relationship painted by Raphael sits in the Room of the Segnatura in Rome, called the Raphael rooms. You can type in the "Raphael rooms" at the top of page on the blogger and use that search function.

While I do not like to infer such attributes to the signatures the Pope signs, I do believe that the ancient mind tried to capture the deeper meaning of these individuals, Plato and Aristotle. As I try to do.

Epistemology (Wikipedia 30 May 2006)

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

Plato defined knowledge as justified true belief.

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

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

Hand gestures have many different meanings? Look at Buddha?

If it's Not a Soccer Ball, What is it?

Timaeus concludes

And so now we may say that our account of the universe has reached its conclusion. This world of ours has received and teems with living things, mortal and immortal. A visible living thing containing visible things, and a perciptible God, the image of the intelligible Living Thing. Its grandness, goodness, beauty and perfection are unexcelled. Our one universe, indeed, the only one of its kind, has come to be.

WMap currently expressed, has some explaining to do. While they talk about ekroptic universe and such, such cyclical natures need some reference with which to speak, in order for such idealizations and perspective form around the information WMap has currently released.

The fifth element, i.e., the quintessence, according to Plato was identified with the dodecahedron. He says simply "God used this solid for the whole universe, embroidering figures on it". So,I suppose it's a good thing that the right triangles comprising this quintessence are incommensurate with those of the other four elements, since we certainly wouldn't want the quintessence of the universe to start transmuting into the baser subtances contained within itself!

Higher abstractness, in the case of leaving euclidean perspective, are part of the realization when you look at the WMAP, that is being presented. While sound implications are being implied, they are necessary if it is understood the role they will play in such analogies of a larger global pewrspectve then the one seen in how gaussian coordinates and curvatures are implied, in Omega features, and critical density.

A Finite Dodecahedral Universe

According to the team, who published their study in the 9 October 2003 issue of Nature, an intriguing discrepancy in the temperature fluctuations in the afterglow of the big bang can be explained by a very specific global shape of space (a "topology"). The universe could be wrapped around, a little bit like a "soccer ball", the volume of which would represent only 80% of the observable universe! (figure 1) According to the leading cosmologist George Ellis, from Cape Town University (South Africa), who comments on this work in the "News & Views" section of the same issue: "If confirmed, it is a major discovery about the nature of the universe".

So having a greater perspective on this kind of mapping is necessary. While I reference tunneling and such, implicate bee's travelling or satelittes using pathways of least resistance, how does such states have been reached, if you did not have the perspective that is necessary in seeing how the universe is laid out geometrically?

Scientists Get Glimpse of First Moments After Beginning of Time by DENNIS OVERBYE

"If this holds up to the test of time, it's a real landmark," said Max Tegmark, a cosmologist and cosmic microwave expert at M.I.T. "I really feel like the universe has given up one more clue," he said.

The quantum gravity issues implored, and speculated, have a diverse model selection with which to talk about? John Baez's view came up when I seen the model in which he choose for such understanding. Having seen the "membrane" idealizations used in qauntum gravity models, helped with the perspective that he used, but like Plato his definition fell short to me of the substructure(a discrete meaasure in bubble facets) of the cosmo that would relegated some model, to perfect our view microscopically, as well as macroscopically.




Tegmark and others disproved this, so what is the nature of the cosmo in question, and it's shape? So having understod the idealization of flat gemetries of the universe, how could such negative features be understood as the hyperbolic understanding became part and parcel of GR in our understanding of the gravity issues?

With the discovery of sound waves in the CMB, we have entered a new era of precision cosmology in which we can begin to talk with certainty about the origin of structure and the content of matter and energy in the universe.-Wayne Hu

Such analogies were very important in raising our understanding of what might have been seen in the membrane ideals of how gravity could act in bubble boundaries conditions. While such faces might have been understood in such analogies of John Baez's, a spherical harmonics would have had to been much smoother in our understanding?

Imploring the analogies and models in this respect made it much easier to see on another level, in non euclidean realities. Further then, the understanding of gaussian coordinates. You knew this was part and parcel of a larger picture understood in GR?



The Sound of Gravitational Waves

We can't actually hear gravational waves, even with the most sophisticated equipment, because the sounds they make are the wrong frequency for our ears to hear. This is similar in principle to the frequency of dog whistles that canines can hear, but that are too high for humans. The sounds of gravitional waves are probably too low for us to actually hear. However, the signals that scientists hope to measure with LISA and other gravitational wave detectors are best described as "sounds." If we could hear them, here are some of the possible sounds of a gravitational wave generated by the movement of a small body inspiralling into a black hole.

So there is a culmination in my views as I now look at the new WMap presented. A greater understanding implored in geometric realization, that had to be taken down to the microscopic where quantum gravity existed, yet, the geometry used, what new math would this be? It was encapsulted in the overall understanding of cyclical natures.



Is there such a thing, as isometrical relations of orbitals, in cosmological designs? A Classical definition of the Quantum World perhaps?

Some patterns are telling to me of the way in which the universe, and the galaxies in which had formed, would have followed some geometrical all inclusive pattern, that we see unfolding from place to place, and assigning, specific polarization points within the view of the WMAP.



Now, look at the map below.

The WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) mission is designed to determine the geometry, content, and evolution of the universe via a 13 arcminute FWHM resolution full sky map of the temperature anisotropy of the cosmic microwave background radiation. The choice of orbit, sky-scanning strategy and instrument/spacecraft design were driven by the goals of uncorrelated pixel noise, minimal systematic errors, multifrequency observations, and accurate calibration. The skymap data products derived from the WMAP observations have 45 times the sensitivity and 33 times the angular resolution of the COBE DMR mission. The WMAP mission characteristics are summarized in the table below.

So by using information in the Chladni plate exhibit within this site, it becomes a interesting picture when such "spectrum analysis" make themselves representable in "color" as a variation of the landscape.

The temperature fluctuations of the Cosmic Background Radiation may be decomposed into a sum of spherical harmonics , much like the sound produced by a music instrument may be decomposed into ordinary harmonics. The "fundamental" fixes the height of the note (as for instance a 440 hertz acouctic frequency fixes the "A" of the pitch), whereas the relative amplitudes of each harmonics determine the tone quality (such as the A played by a piano differs from the A played by a harpsichord). Concerning the relic radiation, the relative amplitudes of each spherical harmonics determine the power spectrum, which is a signature of the geometry of space and of the physical conditions which prevailed at the time of CMB emission.

But if you are really interested in the way we see the universe how would such patterns illustrate what is being shown in the WMAP. A Chladni plate perhaps as spoken in reference. I needed a model with which to work the whole geometrical picture.

If you sprinkle fine sand uniformly over a drumhead and then make it vibrate, the grains of sand will collect in characteristic spots and figures, called Chladni patterns. These patterns reveal much information about the size and the shape of the drum and the elasticity of its membrane. In particular, the distribution of spots depends not only on the way the drum vibrated initially but also on the global shape of the drum, because the waves will be reflected differently according to whether the edge of the drumhead is a circle, an ellipse, a square, or some other shape.

In cosmology, the early Universe was crossed by real acoustic waves generated soon after Big Bang. Such vibrations left their imprints 300 000 years later as tiny density fluctuations in the primordial plasma. Hot and cold spots in the present-day 2.7 K CMB radiation reveal those density fluctuations. Thus the CMB temperature fluctuations look like Chaldni patterns resulting from a complicated three-dimensional drumhead that

See:

Plato's Defintion of God

Sound of the Landscape

B Field Manifestations

Resonance:Brownian Motion

Plato and Aristotle

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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


Plato:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You needed Plato?:)

Timaeus:Laying the Ground rules on Genesis

You all know that you each have a respective hand on the elephant, and thsoe who would contribute their qunatum mathematics are new comers to what had already existed. As the craftsman Plato, I created the elephant in the thought of the man for this time:)


Genesis Timaeus 27c-34a

Sometimes as you read my dialogues you discover the flavour of individuals who had passed through these readings, and in selected words, highlighted the logic with which they would highlight my approach, and speak about science and the way of it?

Had I known that when I wrote this dialogue that minds like Einstein, or a Hooft would travel through these sections, I might then of assigned the "Craftsman" to different people here, as they developed the models of the world, with which this process speaks too.

Let me pick an example then for you and say that this perspectve I select holds one accountable, and recognizes that in this case it is becoming and perishable. A I highlight a section for you and you read you will understand.



Now some of you know that early on in this blog John Baez's view about the soccer ball was most appealing one for consideration, but indeed, the sphere as the closet example could all of a sudden become the ideas for triangulations never crossed my mind. Nor that Max Tegmark would tell us, about the nature of these things.

Is not, as John would like us to have believed? The "soccer ball" is dead, but not my Platomic form. It will remain, and live in the hall of the infamous, as a model of the way the world is created? It's underlying nature? It's "to be," as a Shakespearean thought would also have it's "infliction" on my very own words.

But let me first clarify some things here before I loose myself amongst all mmy writings, as it is difficult to retain the mind of individuals in the characters of these dialogues so that the discourse is found relevant in ways of a future, as I have first shown thus.

Timaeus:

First then, in my judgment, we must make a distinction and ask, What is that which always is and has no becoming; and what is that which is always becoming and never is? That which is apprehended by intelligence and reason is always in the same state; but that which is conceived by opinion with the help of sensation and without reason, is always in a process of becoming and perishing and never really is. Now everything that becomes or is created must of necessity be created by some cause, for without a cause nothing can be created.

Now let me say that if you are to define the rules of the game, then it will be that each would come from their corner, and from these distinctive positions, bias themselves to what I had always laid first before you.

So the ground rules had been laid long before any of you would speak on the ideas of emergence or not, first principle or not, and the defined shapes or not?

So by these implications you have to then known the logic with which you would approach this discourse with science and all who have used my dialogues :)

Lee Smolin:

-Stick to the issues raised. If someone raises a criticism, whether its done according to your standards of rhetoric or not, just answer the substantial science issue. Don’t waste our time with discussion about anything else. Don’t respond to a criticism on a specific point by changing the subject.

-No personal attacks, absolutely none. If someone has a Ph.D., then they are credentialed. Discuss with them in good faith and with respect.

-Let’s strive to agree on facts before discussing interpretation. Insist on precision and honesty, don’t allow exaggeration, and admit it gracefully when you are wrong or when the evidence does not support something you would like to be true. If someone questions the status of a claim, don’t say “everyone I respect believes X is true.” Say, X is in fact unproven, but there is evidence for it, which is exactly the following….

-Listen carefully to those professional colleagues who read the evidence differently from you, and try to understand sympathetically and in good faith, why they do so.

-Restrain your own communities. Make it clear that it is not acceptable to you when those in your committee insult others or publish or post things that are exaggerated or false. If someone insists on behaving badly, it is up to their community to restrain them. Make it clear that repeatedly treating colleagues disrespectfully in a public forum amounts to professional misconduct. The same is true for repeated cases of knowingly exaggerated or misleading statements in a public forum.

If we can all agree to some basic rules like this I am optimistic that we-and science- will come out better from the debates ahead.

While Lubos has some ideas of his own here, then it seems fair that we should work on these "ground rules" so that each understands that when they step on stage, they had both agreed to the plot that would take hold of science for all to see.

Lubos Motl:

These rules are, first of all, a proposal for a complete and thorough politicization of all of science. The first point is that personal integrity (or scientific integrity) is a very subjective thing that a person simply has or has not. And people will never agree whether certain things have been honest or not.

So if Lee Smolin, sets the "ground rules" while Lubos seeks to develope clarity from position and Clifford the stage, then we would know that your bias's would have to be put aside, in order to proceed. Previous conversations failed, Lubos and Lee:)I have watched your respective positions and felt Lee's feelings on trying, but never really succeeding, to adventure respective positions as one would have put it on stage. The Krauss issue timing is impecabble not for book publicity gain but for how one were to develope the scripts of science in dicussion.

At these meetings of mind, the idealization had been first spelt out in my story of Timaeus, now it is your turn as "to be" the Shakespeare, Einstein or t"hooft would be.

Objective Truth?

Mark:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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