Below is a post on a different site, but I am drawn to those who have
given examples of emergence as theoretical positions.
I hope you will bare with me here.
http://large.stanford.edu/rbl/lectures/index.htm
Lauglin does not like the term first principles. I am opening this up
with the understanding of math creation(?) and how it begins. I have
looked at what could have been associationed with Emergent ideas and
it asks the question of what begins and where. Assumption that energy
and gravity waves have always existed?
http://superstringtheory.com/forum/metaboard/messages18/366.html
----------------------------------------------------------------
I mentioned induction and deduction. There is a process here that
required the >understanding of first principles.
Einstein had a special ability, as did Feynman.
You see, in probabilitiy statistics, if we are so concerned with the
matters, how is it some men can see into the very basis of such
statistics, and through insight, develope the roads to understanding,
and they had not even ventured through the math yet?
What capabilties allowed a Feynman to understand such complexities
and come up with simple solutions? If the quantum mechanics were
understood, and we had identified the matters to which such attentions
are drawn, the pathways(S matrixes) and highways these men undertsood
were simple examples to a complex issue. Such simplicity, the real
beauty of the math, that comes in insight? The math comes later.:)Yet
it was embedded in the insight:)
Einstein became quite unhappy in his later years as he tried to come
to grips with his unified theory, as a road that became , a
mathematical venture, became a loss to what was always easy for him.
Thought experiments that challenged the every basis of Bohr? Well
success was >humour to what men already understood that they could
play the games, and with Feynman, always the trickster?
What allows men to see into such complexities? To see a string that
ties together a pattern that not one of us might have seen, yet
through all that information, it became quite plain to them. They
could make predictions on it, because they had a model in their head
already?
So lets look at what string can do as they come together in their
intersections. Two loops that become one. Lets look at the geometrical
quest for pattern formation, and what came of it?
We understand now, that such schematics were the basis of complex
issues for Feynman, and what do we have today, simple drawings, that
explain processes that we speak about in a way that is very
different.( New language perhaps, and a logic, that philosphically
became the math for understand interactions of photons?)
If you find correspondance now is this example, to what I have been
telling you, it has only come lately to my own understanding, so there
was no way for me to know this.
Correlation of Cognition, helps here sometimes, where we had lack the
teachers to show us the truth( not saying it is always the truth, why
one continues to ask), and what had we found from such links and
correlations( I have always spoken of the gravity of things:)?
Something that is quite moveable in the way such dynamics might have
revealed of the zeropoint vibration, and in this, a signature of the
very matters to which that small world is spoken too, in much the same
way, such dynamics are exposed in the cosmos?:)
Do you think strings has found some basis in this pattern forming to
have geometrically defined, itself much the same way, that Feynman and
Einstein made use of such insight?
So there is to be a joining of a kind, of relativity (the very large)
and Quantum mechanics(the very small). In relativity, there is a
beginnning and a end, yet in such fuzzy quarters, we find the
discription of the small world very hard to pinpoint, so we talk about
strings.:)
If there is no beginning, and no such zero point is ever reached,
where have such oscillations come to a stop? How is it, we could have
ever had found value in relativity, being joined in superstrings?
There had to a be a way in which such a process is understood in terms
of the energy, to have seen where such densities of energy gatherings
would have found examples in the blackholes and the congregations
there? There is information loss that a photon release might have
explained something to us about the time dilation, here and what has
happened to the photon?
It is only by our own consensus that such measures wil have allowed
us to agree on the substance of reality, yet we are observers in this
world. Remove the measure then you have removed our consciousness of
things?
The Taoist symbol is something I found that moves very much like the
movements I had been telling you about, A Mobius or a Klien bottle,
and what could be learnt here about things turning inside/out. If it
were so irrational( these insights, how is it such a sphere can ever
have a hole in it and how is this movement accomplished? How could a
triangle ever become more then 180 degrees, and how could we have ever
understood soemthing less then?
Is there no movement implied here? Does it not require the math, and
where did it come from? You understand the essence of such maths must
describe the the very genralizations that such insights can reveal, or
why would we be so amazed?:)
-------------------------------------------------------
Any other ideas or vaidative science that could correct this view
please feel free to jump in.
Thanks
Sol
.
|
