Monday, April 10, 2006

Describing the Intuitive Process?

True creativity often starts where language ends-Arthur Koestler


If such a image is recognized in how we attain such clarity, then would such a map be insignificant? What was conducive to the event happening? Fishing the deep waters of our subconcious purposely or with no cause other then to resolve a problem?



As subjective as the topic of intuition might be in regards to each others abilities, I see no reason why such a process should not be explained. People with good science abilities recognize that this process is a valid one regardless of the leanings towards atheistic, or godliness in bias, that I think appropriate that it is taken out of the subjective realm and mysticism? That any good luck, might wane, if all of a sudden talked about.

Clifford:
His was the best single sentence summing up the concept, as we were to use it that evening: Intuition is the process of getting to a destination without knowing the route. He also added: Sometimes you did not even know you wanted to get there. I've modified the words a bit, but that's the essence of what he said. It was a definition that was so appreciated, you could hear several audible hhhhmmmmms of recognition from the audience.


There is a quiet recognition here, of something that touches us all, and trying to explain it does not seem like a inappropriate thing to do. Thus I would try and model a approach no different then the mathematician or scientist who is at a lost for words/math. Thus, Arthur’s quote up top makes some kind of sense.

Now sure the ingenuity of the moment might seem far and in between, but being aware of the day today circumstances in our memories induced created, is a good way of watching how this process might unfold. That they might only be one time of significance, would not dissaude me from stating that it is more likely encounter more then one might think. An example multiplied by the number of people who say ah, yes I see, and we understand that the point about it’s significance, that we are in agreement. Is there some other explanantion, the more the merrier, that we might see the greater detail?

This intuitive process is as applicable to our search for wordings, as it is for science/math.

Where is the most apropriate place for such recognitions, as to when the work ends, and we are at a loss?

A Supersymmetrical idea perhaps, or a potential resource seen in analogy like water, of the subconscious/unconscious? Would we be wise to know when such things are sent to the subconscious, that by such continued recourse in the sameness of experience, such things will arise to the surface time and time again.

Has this emotive experience changed, or, can we assign new attitudes to what we always did uncosciously? By being aware in our daily lives, the forces of violent seas or a messy house in symbolic analogy will we have recognized the warnings from a disorganized mind, or one, that has not paid attention to the experience manifested?

1 comment:

nige said...

Aristotle argued for the "intuitive grasp of self evident principles", did he?

And you think I'd be best calling myself Aristotle?

I do like Aristotle's arrow. Aristotle wrote about it in his Physics, 350 BC.

The spacetime fabric of GR or the Dirac sea is affected when matter moves through it.

By analogy, the motion of negative charge (real electrons) one way in a wire is equivalent to the motion of "holes" (pseudo positive charges) in the opposite direction.

Take a submarine of x cubic metres volume moving at velocity v.

This causes a volume of water of exactly x cubic metres (the same volume as the sub) to move the opposite direction, and this mass of water has an average velocity of -v (the same speed but the oppposite direction to the sub).

So the water is filling in the void in the wake of the submarine. This comes from pure logic. If the water, which is virtually incompressible, did not move out of the way and flow around into the wake of the sub, then the sub would be unable to move.

So the surrounding fluid creates a kind of inertia. When the flow is established, it creates momentum.

Take this concept to the expanding universe. The matter of the universe appears to recede radially away from us in at velocity v = Hx, H is Hubble's constant and x is distance of stars, galaxies, etc.

Because of Minkowski's spacetime in our frame of reference as observers, we can change x to time past by the substitution x = ct.

Then we get v = Hx = Hct.

Now we see that v varies as a function of t. This means acceleration in spacetime. A somewhat unfamiliar conjecture in cosmology, but the evidence for spacetime is empirical!

But did you look at the magnitude? Because the gradient of v with respect to t is linear, a = dv/dt = v/t = Hct/t = Hc.

This is about 6 x 10 ^ - 10 m/s^2.

Newton's 2nd law: F = ma.

We know the acceleration of the spacetime universe, a. Now what is the mass of the spacetime universe, m? Simple, it is the average density, multiplied by the volume of a sphere with radius x = ct where t is age of universe.

So we have mass and acceleration, and we find F(outward) = ma ~ 7 x 10^43 Newtons.

Newton's 3rd law then says that there must be an equal and opposite reaction to any force.

From the known particles of the Standard Model and their known abundances, we can see that the only known particles which can have such an immense inward ("implosion") force are vector bosons which cause forces!

Doing two different calculations with completely different logical arguments, we find independently the same conclusion: the strength of gravity predicted correctly within 2% using current data, and the solution to several other problems.

But nobody wants to know?

No I'm not an Aristotle! Aristotle was widely read and admired, so he got most things wrong.

I'm not going to speculate. Of course, the empirical facts of geometry, spacetime, mathematical proof, etc., which I'm using are dismissed as "speculation" by you and others.

But if you stated the facts, you'd be dismissed as a "science hater who is ignorant of string theory" by someone at Harvard.

Far better that you falsely call me Aristotle or Hitler, or a crackpot, without first reading my work or checking that what you say is right.

That way, you actually protect your reputation with Gerard 't Hooft "the determinist". Be intolerant and dismiss Aristotle as crazy.

;-)