As you read, hold on to the thought about
stringy/M theory developement.
Richard Denton:
I discovered that it was simply philosophy on its own that had played the very much larger role in the gradual erosion of belief.
This is a interesting statement to me since some scientists might think that to have even included this in our "developing perspective" might have showed immediate signs of weakness? Evil?
As if, math came out of all natural things, on it's own?
So how did such views change us if we did not think about them more critically?
See, I am not sure I like to think that there is "no God" that can be substitued by taking this power of belief outside of ourselves to religions and institutions. Crippling us, as to the empowerment we have for such changes in our own life?
While we had seen the topic of "
stringevangelism" introduced, there wasn't this concerted effort to make string as a all empowering "theory of everything( what
underlying reality was referred too?)", even though, some would try to "invoke" these Godly powers of discrimmination. As a facist group, that would censor any views contrary to their own, as to what seemed, "stringevangelistic?" :)
It then became the same institution, that it despises? Some might know who I mean here. If I stood up to it, could I change reality as well, as to that this group invokes into society?
Anyway while I used Jo-Annes thread, "
A little Bit of Heaven," to highlight this quality of
earthly senses?
Topo-sensePlato:
This intuitive feeling that is generated once math processes are understood are realized in dynamical movement revealled in the brains thinking? Had to arrive from lessons it learnt previously? Pendulums, time clocks, great arcs, and gravity?
I sought to internalize Gr's momentums, with Mecuries orbital patterns, or Hulse and Taylors expanding awareness of other things(gravity). I started to ask myself if this internalization was wrong? Is Topo-sense wrong? As too, intuitive unfoldments of the subject, in regards to Genus figures(holes)? Would it perish too? Revelations, leading to maths used?
Internal developement would have revealled a greater core depth of the realities around us. Which are highly abstract, yet, could have lead to insight and convictions held in astronomy happenings in the cosmo(isomorphic relations?)? So this internalization developed conviction, with the basis of Gr's valuation of quantum mechanical things, to cosmological proportions?
Strings as a model then, that could lead to perspectives with "langangian valuations" not only in terms of supersymmetry(concentration of a all pervading "beginning" that we could resort too,) as I espoused in Andrey Kravtsov computer's model.
That such relations in our philosophical orientation of physics would endure in measure, culminate with "fineness" and valuations of gravity perspectives. Could you do this, without some model?
So, would the "counter of belief in God," be the lesson the valuation of what one holds by introducing atheistic valautions, AS TO ROADS LEADING TO "COMMON SENSE?"
While I used stringy comparison for examination, this leads back again to what models can be used to keep the human beings empowered, without stealing this away from them by such institutionalizations? Continued reflection, thwarted, as to no experimental valuations yet philosphically introduced. You remember the opening statement I used?
I thought about the choices we make then, and the convictions we have. Would this have been irrelevant in our assessments of our own characters? After all, it would be you who walked back into society to think about the Smolins and Susskinds who would debate the essence of the backgrond?? What is understood, and what stringy needs to do?