Saturday, August 09, 2008

First Principals of Quantum Mechanics

Of course the discussions are leading me to gather my thoughts on things, as they are being spoken too, by Bloggingheads.

A Life of the Genius Ramanujan
by Robert Kanigel

Srinivas Ramanujan (1887-1920)In the past few decades, we have witnessed how Ramanujan's contributions have made such a profound impact on various branches of mathematics. The book, "The man who knew infinity", by Robert Kanigel reached out to the general public the world over by describing the fascinating life story of Ramanujan. And now, in the form of a play, the public is made aware, once again, of this wonderful story. This is a very impressive play and I had the pleasure of seeing it with Prof. George Andrews, the world's greatest authority on Ramanujan's work and on partitions.

I am some what disappointed that Sean Carroll deleted my response to Lawrence Crowell and Rebel dreams.

Lawrence referenced GH Hardy, and I expanded on this in relation to Ramanujan. The point is in regards too pure mathematics. Some might have become offended by my saying "one's God" too imply, that one can idolize and put into stone, graven images of God, yet, this is so far from the truth of my statement that I hope the post I wrote was kept and seen in this light that I am to explain.

Some would never recognize the developmental aspect of a "higher self" and what images that we unconsciously induce to allow this communication within to take place.

It is not the forgetfulness with which one would like to make those graven images and form, "but the realization" that what ever we attach to something being meaningful, becomes meaningful, and pray too, can come through with an extraordinary amount of wisdom.

IN this context I would not judge another human being on the position they hold too in life, as this sets the stage for what is to come. In Ramanujan's case, the information of his mathematics came through in such a form.

My point is that while we build the inductive/deductive application to our "principals of infinite regress" that ultimately such an exercise is reduce too, yes, the mathematical framework that lies very close to that light.

While in relation to creation stories, such responsibility is on the adherence that we adopt to scientific endeavour, with which we place observation and experimentation to understanding what reality is about. I do not advocate irresponsibleness in this regard, but push to rigour that science requires.

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


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 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 Man Who Knew Infinity


Phil Warnell said...

Hi Plato,

“If the flesh came for the sake of the spirit, it is a miracle. But if the spirit for the sake of the flesh—it is a miracle of miracles.”

-The Gospel of Thomas



Plato said...

Hi Phil,

The Philosophy of the Gospel of Thomas

In Thomas v.3, Jesus says,[24]

...the Kingdom of God is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living Father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty, and it is you who are that poverty.

I am afraid I cannot either ignore the youth with which I was raised, although this does not mean I am by any regard "the product of a Catholic system."

"Insight development" happens to be part of my thing, and when reading such phrases, how would each other know what it to mean, if there was not a common understanding?

That "little bit extra" above the sciences?

An atheist might think this is all about God, yet, it is the bringing closer to the realization of where heaven is(?) when one adjusts their eyes inward, and up.

In colour of gravity such a realization is the fact that colour defines our relations with the world beyond the limitations of the physical world.

Maybe, such a thing as "liminocentric structure" may be revealing when in reference to the light? How would you, or I know that? How would someone know to push the intellectual to recognize where these abstract elements exist? Call them "mathematics" or the "first principles of quantum mechanics?"

It was a position Penrose and Hooft recognized. While Lee Smolin works from one position. Builds around it. Others build, using different methods.

Self discovery does not mean to become solidified in such an "ego centred structure," but to find our place within the larger perspective of the reality we live. Find the "ray of creation" that extends into the reality. And yes,how do we get back again?:)

I have yet to complete this post you commented in.


Phil Warnell said...

Hi Plato,

For me the interesting thing about Ramanujan in regards to mathematics is that almost all of what he initially produced in the subject was done without the support of what would be considered having produced any legitimate or formal proof; in fact he didn’t even understand the concept or the necessity of it before meeting Hilbert. This leaves one to realize that although many were correct they would be considered as only unsupported insights (hypotheses) within the confines and structure of what we call mathematics. This then leaves room to wonder if these insights should be considered resultant of the aspects and consequence of reason or the recognition of truth without the need of it.



Plato said...

Phil:This then leaves room to wonder if these insights should be considered resultant of the aspects and consequence of reason or the recognition of truth without the need of it.

You would be getting hotter in regards to the aspects I present for examination.

How is it possible for such truth to exist while we know very well that reason must prevail?

An inductive/deductive method that leaves one with this process to "infinite regress" to a "peak realization" whereby I place Plato and Aristotle under this arche painted by Raphael, is telling is it not? The hand gestures are significant in relation to Plato and Aristotle

What am I asking to remember as you look at the head of this blog site?

Instead of cornerstone or foundation stone( I see the language barrier can be difficult(funding stone)and correction takes place( of course there is the understanding about posting on Equivalence that takes shape here?:)

I would imply that the idea is more that related to a keystone?

I am pointing to something in each of us that speaks from "one of understanding" and closer too the "indecomposable limits inside of us" as we look at what the implication of a "psychological model can portray" in terms of a liminocentric structure, and our relation with the elements of the dream world.

As chaotic as it may seem, lies a attachment to that wisdom inherent. No matter your religion, this person of who you have lived your life, will be modelled according to the life in belief you have lead.

Aspects of a "higher self" maybe? Where is this heaven?

By turning your eyes inward and upward, what is being asked?

Yet I would never discard this "truth inherent" even if it comes from such a chaotic place.

The language for Ramanujan was mathematics and from the tongue of his beliefs, an indecomposable limit was reached.

Do you now see how accidental the process unfolded for Ramanujan?

Yet, this process is inherent in the intuitive realizations that speak to the cognitive abilities of how one may place mathematics in expression.

The abstractness of the mathematics is closer to this "indecomposable limit" found within each of us. In that place, the sun shines and in that, "abstractions are the rays of creation." Elements of natures way?


Phil Warnell said...

Hi Plato,

I’ve often found it interesting to speculate what Ramanujan might have discovered if he had not such a abbreviated life. For instance I’ve read many times where Einstein complained that what defeated him in his quest for a unified field theory was not the physical insight yet rather the mathematical tools required to express and explore the insights he already had.

“In this edition I have added, as a fifth appendix, a presentation of my views on the problem of space in general and the gradual modifications of our ideas on space resulting from the influence of the relativistic viewpoint. I wished to show that space-time is not necessarily to which one subscribes a separate existence, independently of the actual objects of physical reality. Physical objects are not in space, but these objects are spatially extended. In this way the concept of “empty space” loses its meaning.”

-Albert Einstein- June 9th, 1952

- Relativity “The Special and the General Theory”-Note to the Fifth edition



Plato said...

Hi Phil,

Einstein:In this edition I have added, as a fifth appendix

It seemed to be a repeatable pattern?:)

At first Einstein did not understand what use the euclidean geometries would serve, upon Grossman's introduction. But Grossman "knew" it would help.

If you did not learn "to see" in this way what use to understand the "dynamical nature of relativity" in association to gravity?

This is a important lesson from Gauss and Riemann and by lessons shown ,that such inclusions would become apparent in Maxwell's equations as elements of the magnetic field in expression, and of course from these descendants, along came Einstein.

Can you imagine a culture that had no concept of straight lines? How would they have ever arrived at the non-euclidean?

In fact, if you were to think of our Native American's, one might like to introduce this question of "straight lines" with regard to their relationship with nature.

So non-euclidean may be foreign to those who have not been able to think this way, and by introduction now know it's applicability to horizons, and parallel lines, and train tracks.

And of course, to the physics.