Process Fractal vs Geometry Fractals

Let proportion be found not only in numbers, but also in sounds, weights, times and positions, and whatever force there is.Leonardo Da Vinci

The Mandelbrot set, seen here in an image generated by NOVA, epitomizes the fractal. Photo credit: © WGBH Educational Foundation

 "Clouds are not spheres, mountains are not cones, coastlines are not circles, and bark is not smooth, nor does lightning travel in a straight line." So writes acclaimed mathematician Benoit Mandelbrot in his path-breaking book The Fractal Geometry of Nature. Instead, such natural forms, and many man-made creations as well, are "rough," he says. To study and learn from such roughness, for which he invented the term fractal, Mandelbrot devised a new kind of visual mathematics based on such irregular shapes. Fractal geometry, as he called this new math, is worlds apart from the Euclidean variety we all learn in school, and it has sparked discoveries in myriad fields, from finance to metallurgy, cosmology to medicine. In this interview, hear from the father of fractals about why he disdains rules, why he considers himself a philosopher, and why he abandons work on any given advance in fractals as soon as it becomes popular. A Radical Mind

As I watch the dialogue between Bruce Lipton and Tom Campbell here, there were many things that helped my perspective understand the virtual world in relation to how the biology subject was presented. It is obvious then why Bruce Lipton likes the analogies Tom Campbell has to offer. The epiphanies Bruce is having along the road to his developing biological work is very important. It is how each time a person makes the leap that one must understand how individuals change, how societies change.



Okay so for one,  the subject of fractals presents itself and the idea of process fractals and Geometry Fractals were presented in relation to each other. Now the talk moved onto the very thought of geometry presented in context sort of raised by ire even though I couldn't distinguish the differences. The virtual world analogy is still very unsettling to me.

So ya I have something to learn here.

I think my problem was with how such iteration may be schematically driven so as toidentify the pattern. Is to see this process reveal itself on a much larger scale. So when I looked at the Euclidean basis as a Newtonian expression the evolution toward relativity had to include the idea of Non Euclidean geometries. This was the natural evolution of the math that lies at the basis of graduating from a Euclidean world. It is the natural expression of understanding how this geometry can move into  a dynamical world.

So yes the developing perspective for me is that even though we are talking abut mathematical structures here we see some correspondence in nature . This has been my thing so as to discover the starting point?

A schematic of a transmembrane receptor

It the truest sense I had already these questions in my mind as  I was going through the talk. The starting point for Bruce is his biology and the cell. For Tom, he has not been explicit here other then to say that it is his studies with Monroe that he developed his thoughts around the virtual world as it relates to the idea of what he found working with Monroe.

So it is an exploration I feel of the work he encountered and has not so far as I seen made a public statement to that effect. It needs to be said and he needs to go back and look over how he had his epiphanies. For me this is about the process of discovery and creativity that I have found in my own life. Can one feel so full as to have found ones wealth in being that you can look everywhere and see the beginnings of many things?

This wealth is not monetary for me although I recognized we had to take care of or families and made sure they were ready to be off on their own. To be productive.

The Blind Men and the Elephant
John Godfrey Saxe (1816-1887)

 So for me the quest for that starting point is to identify the pattern that exists in nature as much as many have tried various perspective in terms of quantum gravity. Yes, we are all sort of like blind men trying to explain the reality of the world in our own way and in the process we may come up with our epiphanies.

These epiphanies help us to the next level of understanding as if we moved outside of our skeletal frame to allow the membrane of the cell to allow receptivity of what exist in the world around as information. We are not limited then to the frame of the skeleton hardened too, that we cannot progress further. The surface area of the membrane then becomes a request to open the channels toward expansion of the limitations we had applied to ourselves maintaining a frame of reference.

The Ganzfeld effect

The  Ganzfeld effect (from German for “complete field”) is a phenomenon of visual perception caused by staring at an undifferentiated and uniform field of color. The effect is described as the loss of vision as the brain cuts off the unchanging signal from the eyes. The result is "seeing black"^[1] - apparent blindness.

History 

 

In the 1930s, research by psychologist Wolfgang Metzger established that when subjects gazed into a featureless field of vision they consistently hallucinated and their electroencephalograms changed.

The Ganzfeld effect is the result of the brain amplifying neural noise in order to look for the missing visual signals. The noise is interpreted in the higher visual cortex, and gives rise to hallucinations. This is similar to dream production because of the brain's state of sensory deprivation during sleep.

The Ganzfeld effect has been reported since ancient times. The adepts of Pythagoras retreated to pitch black caves to receive wisdom through their visions^[2], known as the prisoner's cinema. Miners trapped by accidents in mines frequently reported hallucinations, visions and seeing ghosts when they were in the pitch dark for days. Arctic explorers seeing nothing but featureless landscape of white snow for a long time also reported hallucinations and an altered state of mind.

The effect is a component of a Ganzfeld experiment, a technique used in the field of parapsychology.
The artist James Turrell (partly inspired by clear blue skies) has created many such "Ganzfelds" throughout his oeuvre.

See also

• Sensory deprivation
• Ganzfeld experiment
• Dark retreat
• Floatation tank
• Hypnagogia

 

References

1. ^ Ramesh B. Ganzfeld Effect.
2. ^ Ustinova, Yulia.Caves and the Ancient Greek Mind: Descending Underground in the Search for Ultimate Truth, Oxford University Press US, 2009. ISBN 0199548560

• Wolfgang Metzger, "Optische Untersuchungen am Ganzfeld." Psychologische Forschung 13 (1930) : 6-29. (the first psychophysiological study with regard to Ganzfelds)

 EGG: Did you reach this conclusion through more traditional media, like painting or sculpture?

JT: I haven't had anything to do with either sculpture or painting. I have done works that look painted or works that have form and look like sculpture. I make these spaces that apprehend light for your perception. In a way, it's like Plato's cave, where we are sitting in the cave looking at the reflection of reality with our backs to reality. I make these spaces where the spaces themselves are perceivers or in some way pre-form perception. It's a little bit like what the eye does. I mean, I look at the eye as the most exposed part of the brain, as something that is already forming perception. I make these rooms that are these camera-like spaces that in some way form light, apprehend it to be something that's physically present.

EGG: What happens when you use space this way?

JT: This results in an art that is not about my seeing, it's about your direct perception of the work. I'm interested in having a light that inhabits space, so that you feel light to be physically present. I mean, light is a substance that is, in fact, a thing, but we don't attribute thing-ness to it. We use light to illuminate other things, something we read, sculpture, paintings. And it gladly does this. But the most interesting thing to find is that light is aware that we are looking at it, so that it behaves differently when we are watching it and when we're not, which imbues it with consciousness. Often people say that they want to touch some of the work I do. Well, that feeling is actually coming from the fact that the eyes are touching, the eyes are feeling. And this happens because the eyes are quite sensitive only in low light, for which we were made. We're actually made for this light of Plato's cave, the light of twilight. See: Interview with James Turrell

psychomanteums

The room is set up to optimize psychological effects such as trance. Its key features are low light or near-darkness, flickering light, and a mirror. The dimness represents a form of visual sensory deprivation, a condition helpful to trance induction, the undifferentiated colour without horizon producing the Ganzfeld effect^[4], a state of apparent "blindness". The Ganzfeld experiment replicates the conditions of a psychomanteum where a state of trance may be induced by a uniform field of vision. In the way of strobe or flashing light, stimulus is provided by indirect, moving light in the psychomanteum. Flickering candles or lamps are sometimes recommended to induce hallucination. It is supposed the indeterminate depth of the mirror’s darkness allows the eyes to relax and become unfocused, a state that reduces alertness.^[2]

Dr. Raymond Moody, author of the 1981 book about near death experiences, Life After Life, included the psychomanteum in his research trialling 300 subjects which he recorded in his 1993 book, Reunions. Moody viewed the room as a therapeutic tool to heal grief and bring insight.^[2]

How Time Ages the Pyramids

Chanticleer - A Pleasure Garden

Believing that something must be true about the world because you can’t imagine otherwise is, five hundred years into the Age of Science, not a recommended strategy for acquiring reliable knowledge. It goes back to the classic conflict of rationalism vs. empiricism. “Rationalism” sounds good — who doesn’t want to be rational? But the idea behind it is that we can reach true conclusions about the world by reason alone. We don’t ever have to leave the comfort of our living room; we can just sit around, sharing some single-malt Scotch and fine cigars, thinking really hard about the universe, and thereby achieve some real understanding. Empiricism, on the other hand, says that we should try to imagine all possible ways the world should be, and then actually go out and look at it to decide which way it really is. Rationalism is traditionally associated with Descartes, Leibniz, and Spinoza, while empiricism is associated with Locke, Berkeley, and Hume — but of course these categories never quite fit perfectly well.SEE:What Can We Know About The World Without Looking At It?

I had been able to isolate Lee's Smolin's method of approach as to whether something can exist within, or, exists outside of time. Thoughts about Meno come to mind and Plato's Problem and Meno: How Accurately Portrayed?

The idea that truth is timeless and resides outside the universe was the essence of Plato's philosophy, exemplified in the parable of the slave boy that was meant to argue that discovery is merely remembering. Lee Smolin

Of course this article of yours Sean has lead to interesting thoughts. His talk with Memories Arise Out of a Equilibrium David Albert.....how does one logically proceed with inquiry. Why is the past so different, in so many ways, from the future? (12:20)

Sean Carroll

This raises all sorts of questions, the most basic of which are: “What counts as `looking’ vs. `not looking’?” and “Do we really need a separate law of physics to describe the evolution of systems that are being looked at?”

See:Quantum Diavlog

***

When you are told that carrots have human rights because they share half our genes -- but not how gene percentages confer rights -- wizard. When someone announces that the nature-nurture debate has been settled because there is evidence that a given percentage of our political opinions are genetically inherited, but they don't explain how genes cause opinions, they've settled nothing. They are saying that our opinions are caused by wizards, and presumably so are their own. That the truth consists of hard to vary assertions about reality is the most important fact about the physical world David Deutsch: A new way to explain explanation

***

Of course thanks to Lubos for link on Rationalism vs empiricism You can find his thoughts there and more information around his heading below.

The dispute between rationalism and empiricism concerns the extent to which we are dependent upon sense experience in our effort to gain knowledge. Rationalists claim that there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience. Empiricists claim that sense experience is the ultimate source of all our concepts and knowledge.

Rationalists generally develop their view in two ways. First, they argue that there are cases where the content of our concepts or knowledge outstrips the information that sense experience can provide. Second, they constuct accounts of how reason in some form or other provides that additional information about the world. Empiricists present complementary lines of thought. First, they develop accounts of how experience provides the information that rationalists cite, insofar as we have it in the first place. (Empiricists will at times opt for skepticism as an alternative to rationalism: if experience cannot provide the concepts or knowledge the rationalists cite, then we don't have them.) Second, empiricists attack the rationalists' accounts of how reason is a source of concepts or knowledge.See: Rationalism vs. Empiricism

The Pyramid(as an expression of Liberal Arts Encapsulated) is a combination of  the Trivium , and  the Quadrivium

***

The Socratic Method.....and Plato's Ideas, is Replaced by Google?

David Deutsch: A new way to explain explanation

When you are told that carrots have human rights because they share half our genes -- but not how gene percentages confer rights -- wizard. When someone announces that the nature-nurture debate has been settled because there is evidence that a given percentage of our political opinions are genetically inherited, but they don't explain how genes cause opinions, they've settled nothing. They are saying that our opinions are caused by wizards, and presumably so are their own. That the truth consists of hard to vary assertions about reality is the most important fact about the physical world. It's a fact that is, itself,

***  

See Also:


Apart from universes - David Deutsch from Philosophy of Physics on Vimeo.

TED Talk-Leonard Susskind: My friend Richard Feynman

I decided when I was asked to do this that what I really wanted to talk about was my friend Richard Feynman. I was one of the fortunate few that really did get to know him and enjoyed his presence. And I'm going to tell you the Richard Feynman that I knew. I'm sure there are other people here who could tell you about the Richard Feynman they knew, and it would probably be a different Richard Feynman.

Richard Feynman was a very complex man. He was a man of many, many parts. He was, of course, foremost a very, very, very great scientist. He was an actor. You saw him act. I also had the good fortune to be in those lectures, up in the balcony. They were fantastic. He was a philosopher; he was a drum player; he was a teacher par excellence. Richard Feynman was also a showman, an enormous showman. He was brash, irreverent -- he was full of macho, a kind of macho one-upsmanship. He loved intellectual battle. He had a gargantuan ego. But the man had somehow a lot of room at the bottom. And what I mean by that is a lot of room, in my case -- I can't speak for anybody else -- but in my case, a lot of room for another big ego. Well, not as big as his, but fairly big. I always felt good with Dick Feynman.

See Also: Leonard Susskind: My friend Richard Feynman

***

At 9:16 AM, June 01, 2011,  Plato said

Listening to this talk with regard to Susskind's opinion about his friend Dick, he too would have thought about, "irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience." Albert Einstein


Pure thought(what does this linguistic representation actually mean) would have to lead you there and be most understandable as to leaving no doubt as to what has been derived.


I have often wondered where Feynman actually deduced his diagrams from and for me I think seeing how Dirac worked, this was suffice to me to actually see how "i" in for matrices was derived.


This again is my opinion. I am searching for answers.


For me it was about where one set them self in terms of their observation of the place "this simplicity" might have been realized.


Coxeter might have said circle when looking at a round table from above, while standing to the side, he would say ellipse

***

At 10:10 AM, June 03, 2011,  Plato said...

Nothing worse then having to quote oneself in order to press the point. Carry on with life indeed as if nothing missed.:)

Pure thought(what does this linguistic representation actually mean) would have to lead you there and be most understandable as to leaving no doubt as to what has been derived.

Algorithmically, the HTML language is representative of the order in which we might represent an idea....as is done mathematically...that it is conceptually enriched(put a cloud around it) that by such representation it would include historical understandings. These encapsulated by that rhetorical past is "inclusive."

You just take that for granted/assumption as long as the interpretation actually speaks to the historical development and proceeds forward toward an phenomenological order.

Most had to go through the historical development in order to understand where we are today. For the layman in my "seeing choice of method of production" toward falsifying, the choice of structure of phenomenological order is displayed as to demonstrate the thinking's involved scientifically that demonstrates the logic of approach toward a culmination of models of apprehension.

This display's the approach for myself. Might it be an example then of the whole development toward phenomenological order?

Best,

Intelligent Life in the Universe?

While Drake's equation is a good basis for systematic investigations of signals from extraterrestrial intelligences, I care little about the admittedly scarce possibility that we ever receive positive news from our SETI searches. I care more about the fact that, if we consider the whole universe instead than restricting to our small galaxy, and if we omit to require that other civilizations exist at present (whatever this means over billion-light-year distance scales), the probability becomes a certainty.Tommaso Dorigo

I was over at Tommaso Dorigo's Blog, Quantum Diaries Survivor" reading his take on Extraterrestrials: A Dime A Dozen and the opening with Stephen Hawkings Lecture. I cut out the section of my interest as well to see what Dr. Hawking was talking about, besides reading Tommaso's take.

Qualitatively, I have come to realize,  given the framework for consideration of such possibilities,  these equations mean an inductive/deductive self evident constraint  how are we ever to consider the possibility( You have to give yourself permission to entertain).

I mean can we ever know the framework of that Extraterrestrial Intelligence given the parameters for our own belief structures? We do not even know what is possible "not having the framework" to properly question how this can be so?

So what I found in Dr.Hawkings lecture was the generalities of consensus across the industry of science and no new ways in which to possibly perceive the" right questions concerning the framework for possible new intelligences" that we would perceive as Extraterrestrials.

***

NASA's 50th Anniversary Lecture By Professor Stephen Hawking

...........DR. HAWKING: What will we find when we go into space? Is there alien life out there, or are we alone in the universe?

We believe that life arose spontaneously on the Earth. So it must be possible for life to appear on othersuitable planets, of which there seem to be a large number in the galaxy.

But we don't know how life first appeared. The probability of something as complicated as a DNA molecule being formed by random collisions of atoms in ocean is incredibly small. However, there might have been some simpler macro molecule which can build up the DNA or some other macro molecule capable of reproducing itself. Still, even if the probability of life appearing on a suitable planet is very small, since the universe is infinite, life would have appeared somewhere. If the probability is very low, the distance between two independent occurrences of life would be very large.

However, there is a possibility known as panspermia that life could spread from planet to planet or from stellar system to stellar system carried on meteors. We know that Earth has been hit by meteors that came from Mars, and others may have come from further afield. We have no evidence that any meteors carried life, but it remains a possibility.

An important feature of life spread by panspermia is that it would have the same basis which would be DNA for life in the neighborhood of the Earth.

On the other hand, an independent occurrence of life would be extremely unlikely to be DNA based. So watch out if you meet an alien. You could be infected with a disease against which you have no resistance.

One piece of observational evidence on the probability of life appearing is that we have fossils from 3.5 billion years ago. The Earth was formed 4.6 billion years ago and was probably too hot for about the first half billion years. So life appeared on Earth within half-a-billion years of it being possible, which is short compared to the 10-billion-year lifetime of an Earth-like planet.

This would suggest either panspermia or that the probability of life appearing independently is reasonably high. If it was very low, one would have expected it to take most of the 10 billion years available. If it is panspermia, any life in the solar system or in nearby stellar systems will also be DNA based.

While there may be primitive life in another region of the galaxy, there don't seem to be any advanced intelligent beings. We don't appear to have been visited by aliens. I am discounting reports of UFOs. Why would they appear only to cranks and weirdos?

[Laughter.]

DR. HAWKING: If there is a government conspiracy to suppress the reports and keep for itself the scientific knowledge the aliens bring, it seems to have been a singularly ineffective policy so far.

Furthermore, despite an extensive search by the SETI project, we haven't heard any alien television quiz shows. This probably indicates that there are no alien civilizations at our stage of development within the radius of a few hundred lightyears. Issuing an insurance policy against abduction by aliens seems a pretty safe bet.

Why haven't we heard from anyone out there? One view is expressed in this Calvin cartoon. The caption reads: "Sometimes I think that the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us."

More seriously, there could be three possible explanations of why we haven't heard from aliens. First, it may be that the probability of primitive life appearing on a suitable planet is very low.

Second, the probability of primitive life appearing may be reasonably high, but the probability of that life developing intelligence like ours may be very low. Just because evolution led to intelligence in our case, we shouldn't assume that intelligence is an inevitable consequence of Darwinian natural selection.

It is not clear that intelligence confers a long-term survival advantage. Bacteria and insects will survive quite happily even if our so-called intelligence leads us to destroy ourselves.

This is the third possibility. Life appears and in some cases develops into intelligent beings, but when it reaches a stage of sending radio signals, it will also have the technology to make nuclear bombs and other weapons of mass destruction. It will, therefore, be in danger of destroying itself before long.

Let's hope this is not the reason we have not heard from anyone. Personally, I favor the second possibility that primitive life is relatively common, but that intelligent life is very rare. Some would say it has yet to occur on Earth.

[Laughter.]

DR. HAWKING: Can we exist for a long time away from the Earth? Our experience with the ISS, the International Space Station, shows that it is possible for human beings to survive for many months away from Planet Earth. However, the zero gravity aboard it causes a number of undesirable physiological changes and weakening of the bones, as well as creating practical problems with liquids, et cetera.

One would, therefore, want any long-term base for human beings to be on a planet or moon. By digging into the surface, one would get thermal insulation and protection from meteors and cosmic rays. The planet or moon could also serve as a source of the raw materials that would be needed if the extraterrestrial community was to be self-sustaining independently of Earth.

What are the possible sites of a human colony in the solar system? The most obvious is the Moon. It is close by and relatively easy to reach. We have already landed on it and driven across it in a buggy.

On the other hand, the Moon is small and without atmosphere or a magnetic field to deflect the solar radiation particles, like on Earth. There is no liquid water, but there may be ice in the craters at the north and south poles. A colony on the Moon could use this as a source of oxygen with power provided by nuclear energy or solar panels. The Moon could be a base for travel to the rest of the solar system.

Mars is the obvious next target. It is half as far, again, as the Earth from the Sun and so receives half the warmth. It once had a magnetic field, but it decayed 4 billion years ago, leaving Mars without protection from solar radiation. It stripped Mars of most of its atmosphere, leaving it with only 1 percent of the pressure of the Earth's atmosphere.

However, the pressure must have been higher in the past because we see what appear to be runoff channels and dried-up lakes. Liquid water cannot exist on Mars now.

It would vaporize in the near-vacuum. This suggests that Mars had a warm wet period during which life might have appeared either spontaneously or through panspermia. There is no sign of life on Mars now, but if we found evidence that life had once existed, it would indicate that the probability of life developing on a suitable planet was fairly high.

NASA has sent a large number of spacecraft to Mars, starting with Mariner 4 in 1964. It has surveyed the planet with a number of orbiters, the latest being the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. These orbiters have revealed deep gullies and the highest mountains in the solar system.

NASA has also landed a number of probes on the surface of Mars, most recently the two Mars Rovers. These have sent back pictures of a dry desert landscape. However, there is a large quantity of water in the form of ice in the polar regions. A colony on Mars could use this as a source of oxygen.

There has been volcanic activity on Mars. This would have brought minerals and metals to the surface which a colony could use.

The Moon and Mars are the most suitable sites for space colonies in the solar system. Mercury and Venus are too hot, while Jupiter and Saturn are gas giants with no solid surface.

The moons of Mars are very small and have no advantages over Mars itself.

Some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn might be possible. In particular, Titan, a moon of Saturn, is larger and more massive than other moons and has a dense atmosphere.

The Cassini-Huygens Mission of NASA and ESA has landed a probe on Titan which has sent back pictures of the surface. However, it is very cold, being so far from the sun, and I wouldn't fancy living next to a lake of liquid methane.

What about beyond the solar system? Our observations indicate that a significant fraction of stars have planets around them. So far, we can detect only giant planets like Jupiter and Saturn, but it is reasonable to assume that they will be accompanied by smaller Earth-like planets. Some of these will lay in the [inaudible] zone where the distance from the stars is the right range for liquid water to exist on their surface.

There are around a thousand stars within 30 lightyears of Earth. If 1 percent of each had Earth-size planets in the [inaudible] zone, we would have 10 candidate new worlds. We can revisit it with current technology, but we should make interstellar a long-term aim. By long term, I mean over the next 200 to 500 years. The human race has existed as a separate species for about 2 million years.

Civilization began about 10,000 years ago, and the rate of development has been steadily increasing.

If the human race is to continue for another million years, we will have to boldly go where no one has gone before.

***

This same perspective about which I have involved myself with the issues of gravity has been at the forefront of my journey with regards to understanding gravity, and what we have come to know of it on Earth, is that it is not as it is in heaven?:)

Thoughts have this forming effect too, and in the world of Physical constants, how are such thoughts to be measured? "Particulate expressions" in such reductionist modes which lead to a inductive/deductive self evidential state of a ever forming Higg's field?? What thought has traversed the room, to arrive on the other side of the room with consensus?

Not as if, we can defy it's hold on us, while taking plane flights to experience this sensation of dropping fast to earth and leaving ourselves suspended for a time. That it is a consensus borne in mind that such an idea is limited to the framework for which all ideas about it are limited too.

The net result is that the meager N=2.1 becomes over 20 trillions! This means that there are presently 20 trillion civilizations around. 20 trillions. Okay, we might have dropped or added one factor of a hundred too many here or there, but the number is still enormous, no escape!

Is that not a sobering thought ? To me, that is both awesome and saddening. As far as awe is concerned, of course there is no need to explain it. But there is sadness too: for imagine the incredible, unfathomable number of things that we will never be able to know, constrained in our tiny planet, during our insignificant lives. Masterpieces, inventions, acts of bravery, adventures. But also wars, atrocities, catastrophes. The history of the universe will never be written - but it would be quite a read, I am sure.Tommaso Dorigo

So as with the idea of Intelligences in the universe, I place gravity along side of it, as in the context of formulating the right questions. In Tommaso's blog the entry is the deciphering in context of the Drake Equation yet not bound by it in belief. This does not make Tommaso irresponsible to me in shirking the basis of that determination by using the equation.

So of course along the way in my endeavors with those who I have conversed, or left trail bytes for consideration, is the idea that the world as we see it is not always as it seems and that by consensus, the framework is establish is one which limits our views according too.

A "synopsis of the events" can lead us too, and as has been extrapolated according to the world of science. The thoughts that are left to me have been the idea of how scientists can ever introduce new formulations outside of that structure consensus without first taking a new baby step(how so?). They have had to all come to agreement on the latest version of that consensus.

Then there are, the Physical Constants. It is as if in relation to the formulation to a mathematical consistency as a correlative function of the Drake equation in the process of.

This does not mean we sanction irresponsibility to the quest of discovering new worlds of thought, be it in context of Extraterrestrial Intelligences, or even about gravity and the quantum world in which it shall work.

I still visit those scientists who have placed "Outreach" even amidst the data and scientific endeavors they are pursuing. I look for the glimmer of hope that such baby steps are borne out of such minds.

Having defined all the parameters of your science what would be the next question that would lead you to new insights? What new science beyond the experiments that you are working on?

A Yearning for Truth

Beauty, Plato wrote, is not easy to define, but something that "slips through and evades us". For this reason, many logic-oriented philosophical approaches tend to divorce and even oppose truth and beauty. "The question of truth", wrote logician Gottlob Frege in one of his most influential works, "would cause us to abandon aesthetic delight for an attitude of scientific investigation."

 For some who do not see the very questions of what motivates one to distinguish what it is that attracts our search for meaning it is not lost on me that the push toward experimentation is a validation of sorts to the thought or idea of what can exist in another state(aesthetic delight) can arrive for our discriminative facet of clarification as if demonstrated in some prism of light.

“Nature and Nature’s laws long lie hid in Night: God said ‘Let Newton be,’ and all was light.”Alexander Pope’s

As crazy  as Sheldon Glasgow would have us "seen of the character of Newton," it should not be lost that the diversity of opinion coming from such a man,  was to gather and understand all he could about who we are as human beings.

'Tis yours a Bacon or a Locke to blame,
A Newton's genius, or a Milton's flame:
But oh! with One, immortal one dispense;
The source of Newton's Light, of Bacon's Sense.
(Dunciad, III, 215-18)

THE POETICAL WORKS OF ALEXANDER POPE

The Alchemy search for understanding was more then the aesthetic delight that would appear so off offhandedly as a sign of the ignorance,  was a constant search throughout the times for our  humanity,  that it was not without a sense of purpose that such persons would come to want to know about what materialization would be solidified in human experience.

Opticks

Opticks is a book written by English physicist Isaac Newton that was released to the public in 1704. It is about optics and the refraction of light, and is considered one of the great works of science in history.

Opticks was Newton's second major book on physical science. Even if he had not made his better-known discoveries concerning gravity and the invention of the calculus, Opticks would have given him the reputation as one of the greatest scientists of his time.

This work represents a major contribution to science, different from—but in some ways rivaling—the Principia. The Opticks is largely a record of experiments and the deductions made from them, covering a wide range of topics in what was later to be known as physical optics. That is, this work is not a geometric discussion of catoptrics or dioptrics, the traditional subjects of reflection of light by mirrors of different shapes and the exploration of how light is "bent" as it passes from one medium, such as air, into another, such as water or glass. Rather, the Opticks is a study of the nature of light and colour and the various phenomena of diffraction, which Newton called the "inflexion" of light.

In this book Newton sets forth in full his experiments, first reported in 1672, on dispersion, or the separation of light into a spectrum of its component colours. He shows how colours arise from selective absorption, reflection, or transmission of the various component parts of the incident light. His experiments on these subjects and on the problems of diffraction (which he never fully mastered) set the subject of optics on a new level.

The search for the understanding of the "refraction of light" was such an effort to see this aspect developed through our cultural understanding as to see the ultimate source as something that could descend here to earth from above, and that what was above, could be brought from the earth.

A final aspect of beauty that was often cited by readers might be called "deep play". This is the sense that we are actively engaged with something outside ourselves that is responding to us - rather than watching a game of our own construction or watching nature from a detached distance.

***

Thomas Young, English scientist 1773-1829

Vision and colour theory: Young has also been called the founder of physiological optics. In 1793 he explained the mode in which the eye accommodates itself to vision at different distances as depending on change of the curvature of the crystalline lens; in 1801 he was the first to describe astigmatism; and in his Lectures he presented the hypothesis, afterwards developed by Hermann von Helmholtz, that colour perception depends on the presence in the retina of three kinds of nerve fibres which respond respectively to red, green and violet light. This theory was experimentally proven in 1959.

So we see where we can move forward in time as to the perfect of experimentation as to something that seem quite beautiful as evidence of the color of light could have been cast through a rain drop, or sifted through some glass object, as to reflect something equally beautiful,  as a part of the white light as a recognition of the source. 

See:Backreaction: 350 years Royal Society

See Also:Plato's Nightlight Mining Company is claiming Aristarchus Crater and Surrounding Region

Galileo Galilei's Balance

Let proportion be found not only in numbers, but also in sounds, weights, times and positions, and whatever force there is.Leonardo Da Vinci

Can it be said that measure has ever left the mind of those whose age has come and gone, and what appears as "no traces left behind" might indeed be the passage of age of one thought to the next? Progressive?

(This illustration and text are from a magazine advertisement for NBC, probably dating from the 1940’s. It was found among the files of the Print and Picture Department of the Free Library of Philadelphia. The word “eureka!” is coming out of Archimedes’ mouthSee:Archimedes


***

So it is ever the attempt for ingenuity to come forward from the deep recesses of the mind, for daylight to shine, and the measures revealed in as natural setting as possible? Who are these inventors then that help us to begin with one step and move forward with another? Is it their genius that we shall capitalize on, or shall it be the ignited pathways that are set "by ignition," that we say that brain has taken a new course in thinking? Blazing new trails?

These "ideas" always existed? But where?

De Architectura, VitruviusFirst Milanese period 1481/2 - 1499

The first printed edition of the De Architectura (On Architecture) by the ancient Roman architect, Vitruvius, appears.

Marcus Vitruvius Pollio (born c. 80–70 BC, died after c. 15 BC) was a Roman writer, architect and engineer (possibly praefectus fabrum during military service or praefect architectus armamentarius of the apparitor status group), active in the 1st century BC. By his own description[1] Vitruvius served as a Ballista (artilleryman), the third class of arms in the military offices. He likely served as chief of the ballista (senior officer of artillery) in charge of doctores ballistarum (artillery experts) and libratores who actually operated the machines.[2]

***

So in today's world what value would Google have to produce a library and recording of all books that exists so that the route to knowledge shall be forever enshrined in some medium that we use now. If all the institutions and architecture of our civilization were to be gone tomorrow, shall such records be readily available to the "searching mind seeking knowledge" if there be survivors, that it will easily dial up the internet, or by wireless, gain access?

My job more or less has been to enshrine "such knowledge" in the way we record information, that it is different then what Google seeks to do. Yes, some day by such shadows as again from one of Stefan's earlier link supplied below as "Euclidean Geometry and the Shadows," there will be an alignment with such geometries, which shall point the way to a vault where all things that man has gone through, that one day we will know our true history from the beginning of time till now.

This vault to me was about our access to the ideas that exist out there in the ethers and how we might attain by touch of our finger upon it's pulse, that such connection is more then what exists in the Sistine Chapel above, that we had connected to that same resource as Jung's world of the collective unconscious.

How so if we did not pursue the very notion of ideas that are attained at "some center" and found connected outside of our self?

Galileo Galilei

In 1586 at the age of 22, Galileo (1564-1642) wrote a short treatise entitled La Bilancetta (“The Little Balance”). He was skeptical of Vitruvius’s account of how Archimedes determined the fraud in Hiero's crown and in this treatise presented his own theory based on Archimedes’ Law of the Lever and Law of Buoyancy. He also included a description of a hydrostatic balance that determined the precise composition of an alloy of two metals.

Just as it is well known to anyone who takes the care to read ancient authors that Archimedes discovered the jeweler’s theft in Hiero’s crown, it seems to me the method which this great man must have followed in this discovery has up to now remained unknown. Some authors have written that he proceeded by immersing the crown in water, having previously and separately immersed equal amounts [in weight] of very pure gold and silver, and, from the differences in their making the water rise or spill over, he came to recognize the mixture of gold and silver of which the crown was made. But this seems, so to say, a crude thing, far from scientific precision; and it will seem even more so to those who have read and understood the very subtle inventions of this divine man in his own writings; from which one most clearly realizes how inferior all other minds are to Archimedes’s and what small hope is left to anyone of ever discovering things similar to his [discoveries]. I may well believe that, a rumor having spread that Archimedes had discovered the said theft by means of water, some author of that time may have then left a written record of this fact; and that the same [author], in order to add something to the little that he had heard, may have said that Archimedes used the water in that way which was universally believed. But my knowing that this way was altogether false and lacking that precision which is needed in mathematical questions made me think several times how, by means of water, one could exactly determine the mixture of two metals. And at last, after having carefully gone over all that Archimedes demonstrates in his books On Floating Bodies and Equilibrium, a method came to my mind which very accurately solves our problem. I think it probable that this method is the same that Archimedes followed, since, besides being very accurate, it is based on demonstrations found by Archimedes himself. Galileo and the Scientific Revolution by Laura Fermi and Gilberto Bernardini (Translated with the assistance of Cyril Stanley Smith) Basic Books, Inc., New York, 1961 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 61-7486

SEE:The Golden Crown Sources

It had not escaped me that the shadows and stories of the cave become fodder for thought, even amongst our own scientists, that they began the process one way philosophically and thought, what is capable in us to see that any dimensional significance would be an higher portal for some movement of the abstract in mind, is realized in topological dance?


***

See:

God the Geometer

Euclidean Geometry and the Shadows

Update:

The Truth

The Differences

Phil:....yet more importantly it is only in difference that often times much is learned.

IT is appropriate that such a point( self evident) in terms of "differences" is brought forward here for introspection, as a "inductive recognition of our journey's into society and our pursuance of understanding it's structure." This allows us to move forward under a new paradigmatic model for consideration attempts of what shall be introduced back into that same society. One will be able to see "the list" from which this first entry speaks too. It goes beyond the page 200. The Title in which I had given this exercise was based on the page number 63, hence the title, "63:Six of Red Spades


Thomas Kuhn

However, the incommensurability thesis is not Kuhn's only positive philosophical thesis. Kuhn himself tells us that “The paradigm as shared example is the central element of what I now take to be the most novel and least understood aspect of [The Structure of Scientific Revolutions]” (1970a, 187). Nonetheless, Kuhn failed to develop the paradigm concept in his later work beyond an early application of its semantic aspects to the explanation of incommensurability. The explanation of scientific development in terms of paradigms was not only novel but radical too, insofar as it gives a naturalistic explanation of belief-change. Naturalism was not in the early 1960s the familiar part of philosophical landscape that it has subsequently become. Kuhn's explanation contrasted with explanations in terms of rules of method (or confirmation, falsification etc.) that most philosophers of science took to be constitutive of rationality. Furthermore, the relevant disciplines (psychology, cognitive science, artificial intelligence) were either insufficiently progressed to support Kuhn's contentions concerning paradigms, or were antithetical to them (in the case of classical AI). Now that naturalism has become an accepted component of philosophy, there has recently been interest in reassessing Kuhn's work in the light of developments in the relevant sciences, many of which provide corroboration for Kuhn's claim that science is driven by relations of perceived similarity and analogy to existing problems and their solutions (Nickles 2003b, Nersessian 2003). It may yet be that a characteristically Kuhnian thesis will play a prominent part in our understanding of science.

Now you must know this is an extract of a process that was presented to me in context of this book by Thomas Kuhn. I do not know if any can follow along. As I mention in a previous comment to Phil, it was more to the idea of the beginning of a "inductive process" in recognition of the Aristotelean arch that this example of Bacon and Plato was to recognize how such a method was to be used to project themself forward in time, while existing as the individuals they were. They needed to see beyond the boundaries of self encumbered, to see that the sun shined as a fixture in the ideal, and in this aspect, knew it to be, that such an ideal can exist too in an ideal state.

"I was the justest judge that was in England these last fifty years. When the book of all hearts is opened, I trust I shall not be found to have the troubled fountain of a corrupt heart. I know I have clean hands and a clean heart. I am as innocent of bribes as any born on St Innocents Day." Sir Francis Bacon

IN the spirit of Sir Francis Bacon and his short time in prison, one wonders if Sir Francis Bacon needed to break free of the chains that bound him? Cloaked himself, so that such excursions into the communicative world would have allow him to portray and speak relevance to the conditions of those same times. Artistically endowed, in his opinion of those times as the plays of Shakespeare? To be free from persecution.

***

See:

Oh Dear!... How Technology has Changed Things

Orators Reduced to Written Words

See Also:

Revolutions for Change

Observation Pays Off

Brief Glimpses of the Sun

Mathematics and Science: Last Essays

8 Last Essays

But it is exactly because all things tend toward death that life is
an exception which it is necessary to explain.

Let rolling pebbles be left subject to chance on the side of a
mountain, and they will all end by falling into the valley. If we
find one of them at the foot, it will be a commonplace effect which
will teach us nothing about the previous history of the pebble;
we will not be able to know its original position on the mountain.
But if, by accident, we find a stone near the summit, we can assert
that it has always been there, since, if it had been on the slope, it
would have rolled to the very bottom. And we will make this
assertion with the greater certainty, the more exceptional the event
is and the greater the chances were that the situation would not
have occurred. HENRI POINCARE

IT has been this way in my life that such "correlations of cognition" have been revealed along the way that I have asked myself continuously how it is I know what I know?



So very basic in it's shape it can symbolize many things to many different people. The basic factor here is that we choose this design to exemplify a systemic approach to what our minds can relate in viewing reality.

I've had to make some conclusions in my life that are the basis of my views with regard to science. Have a basis about my thoughts in relation to those who truly wanted to know about life. The answers life may of provided for us.

Who had not sought to have someone supply this for you. That life, would be so easy that we could without work have been answered indeed? One had to turn that questioning state back onto itself. Ask that you answer your own question.

What faith is there in each of us not to trust that such a journey to this realization may be supplied by, that all that has ever existed and, will ever exist, is set before you. What is information, and where does it reside. Only then, in the brain? In those cells who have been awakened and new routes establish to a multifaceted cognition of that greater reality and overlay, is the question of coming to how we have that access to it?

Some would be well to read the book that Phil had referred to me.

This blogsite holds a perspective that I think would have been part of Plato's answer to the times before him. That such discourses, had become the example as John Pirsig reveals. John Pirsig over threw the Chicago ole boy's club view through introspective realization, as a staunch educative systemic pursuance in science, that needed another aspect "of the horn" to reveal that "quality of life," could not, and should not have been wiped away in the progression of an Aristotelean view.

Did John Pirsig's own brilliance effectively disable his contribution to the world once he descends into the cave of all life? That it had been a descendant into the valley, hence, the question and purpose gravity is to serve?? Who of us to now had such a route in Mind and matter, could have not been set up to see, that life in the greater struggle could incorporate an mountain top view to life, as a route to the valley in gravity as science in a most illusory way? I beg to differ here.

I think John's view of Raphael in the heading image above, was underestimated. In the spirit of Plato such a thought was and is revealed in one's own "trail and tribulation" as to working the "correlation of cognition" that had formed in views, is about our relationship with reality. Is about this internal/external relationship that while having ventured inward, was revealing an outward outcome.

So yes the idea here is that such a integration is needed to push insight to new heights. While I will have been circumvented to the life I choose in family and ideal as a worker does not mean this view while forming could not be given to the universities and the new explorers.

Recognition of such an educative system has been established in my view on foundation principles established in the teaching method by which PI stands. Such rhetoric then is to reveal the thinking mind it's road to an established view presents itself the opportunity to have itself examine and support in question by what may have been missed. If given a talking stick it is a time then that such a stand allows the speaker to speak his mind, and then open themself to interrogation to help her/him along his way. Help all of us along the way.

***

Artifacts of History

See: The Triangle Descends into the Square

As there was this recognition myself of what was appearing while John Pirsig reveals the totality of his experience in journey and his decline, why is it not possible that knowing what we know now, that such examples of history in artifacts may have a contribution to the state of Plato and how he came to provide his point of view in the orations of the character that are represented in the dialogues?



So such structures while they were forming are revalued in piece meal images that are devoted to the ultimate fate of symbolics in geometric form. After all who in in this journey had not recognized the the Platonic forms as to the question of matter defined, could not see, that such an integration with the quality of life in mind could have been transmitted in a physical model form? Matter

***

See:

Oh Dear!... How Technology has Changed Things

Stargazers and Hill Climbers

Fulleranes and Allotropes

See Also:

The Primitive Aspects of Being

The Geologist and the Mathematician

God the Geometer

Mapping the Pathway Inside