Geometric basis underlying science? I see this tendency of many to the Halls of records, museums, and whatever you like, to keep current for all us folks outside academia.
These are important historical correlations to draw from. These are wonderful connections to the fathers/mothers of science. Distinctive historical figures who embue science with their particular inflections and bend.
Should we dismiss the motivations of those who are driven by "anomalistic behaviors"? Remember Einstein in his youth and the compass? What are we ignorant of in such a case?
We know well, that such measures, if not supported, cannot be easily removed from the memories. Can be relinguished to subjective interpretations. Should not be ruled inadmissable:)Yet, it can drive the motvation of youth in that case t hard and fsat rules of order?
Had there ever been a time where a scientist had seen something that ran contrary to everything they know? It had to be at the front line, or how would anomalistic valuation had ver been entertained? Had been seen by a reputable scientist and held in the idealization of the Einstein who at his time, "lacked comprehension" but was moved.
Here I point out David Gross's statement and context supplied by Tom Siegfried .
Science's greatest advances occur on the frontiers, at the interface between ignorance and knowledge, where the most profound questions are posed. There's no better way to assess the current condition of science than listing the questions that science cannot answer. "Science," Gross declares, "is shaped by ignorance."
Yes I think we all understand.
So indeed we see then that all the forebears of our science then had something in common as they sought to geometrically express the abstract, and in my line of thinking, runs the Wunderkammer models. These are hard and concrete models in glass cases.
Maxwell understood this in Gauss and Faraday, and Einstein, understood this in Riemann? Sachherri elucidating beyond the limits of Euclids postulates 1-4, paved the way for a new dynamcial world? So how strange indeed that Sean Carroll would give us a sixty second explanation on extra dimensions. Have we eluded to an "aspect of mind" in abstraction?
Extra dimensions sound like science fiction, but they could be part of the real world. And if so, they might help explain mysteries like why the universe is expanding faster than expected, and why gravity is weaker than the other forces of nature.
Three dimensions are all we see -- how could there be any more? Einstein's general theory of relativity tells us that space can expand, contract, and bend. If one direction were to contract down to an extremely tiny size, much smaller than an atom, it would be hidden from our view. If we could see on small enough scales, that hidden dimension might become visible.
Sean, what shall you say to Peter Woit, who might say to you. "We are not Ants?"
So this sixty second explanation now presents itself, for the "mantra induced introspection" that one wonders, what the heck might Sean be talking about? Is there a world somewhere that that exists much like "ant world" in which we take part in?
How strange indeed then that the mind has been taken to Ant World, so that we may see, the angles of perception greatly ehanced for us? Where in the real world, walking straight lines is a "balancing act" when we engage the dynamcial qualites of science, that although engineered, also speak to the dynamcial relation underlying our everyday world.
So how shall such analogies then prepare us for the hard questions of science? Can we see now where such abstractions has moved science and the road shall lead us through to the idea of KLein's Ordering of Geometeries? Have we entered a new dynamcial realm of ant world, and together with Michio Kaku, created the new animated "goldfish world" as well, who see very much different then we see from the bridge?
Who is it that now sees and send our minds into "ants and goldfish?"