I think its the Feynman approached the work of Dirac by using Feyman
diagrams to illustrate a mapping of the interactions. Now to me the
visualization techniques are much as Feynman puts it, where okay you are
an alien, how would you approach the world and you see Feynman comes up
with the method.....I think reiterating what his Father said to him.


Paul Dirac
When one is doing mathematical work, there are essentially two
different ways of thinking about the subject: the algebraic way, and the
geometric way. With the algebraic way, one is all the time writing down
equations and following rules of deduction, and interpreting these
equations to get more equations. With the geometric way, one is thinking
in terms of pictures; pictures which one imagines in space in some way,
and one just tries to get a feeling for the relationships between the
quantities occurring in those pictures. Now, a good mathematician has to
be a master of both ways of those ways of thinking, but even so, he
will have a preference for one or the other; I don't think he can avoid
it. In my own case, my own preference is especially for the geometrical
way.link is evasive http://atomicprecision.com/Topics/Pa...20Geometry.pdf

So Feynman's series sort of helps you to set your self up in such a
way in order to see that perception has to be ignited in such a way as
to ask question in a the approach he discusses.


I
always used these geometrical ideas for getting clear notions about
relationships in relativity although I didn’t refer to them in my
published works.Oral History Transcript — Dr. P. A. M. Dirac

So for Dirac to to help us understand antimatter as symbol within
the matrices, beauty in the analytical way, also needs as good way to
visualize what he was doing. IN the same breathe Penrose uses Riemann
sphere to elucidate the geometry as a sister approach to developing his
thoughts regarding the universe. A geometrical underpinning.


[ROGER PENROSE]
"One particular thing that struck me... [LAUGHTER]...is the fact
that he found it necessary to translate all the results that he had
achieved with such methods into algebraic notation. It struck me
particularly, because remember I am told of Newton, when he wrote up his
work, it was always exactly the opposite, in that he obtained so much
of his results, so many of his results using analytical techniques and
because of the general way in which things at that time had to be
explained to people, he found it necessary to translate his results into
the language of geometry, so his contemporaries could understand him.
Well, I guess geometry… [INAUDIBLE] not quite the same topic as to
whether one thinks theoretically or analytically, algebraically perhaps.
This rule is perhaps touched upon at the beginning of Professor Dirac's
talk, and I think it is a very interesting topic."http://atomicprecision.com/Topics/Pa...20Geometry.pdf

So this is my suspicion and I am not sure many share it. It goes back
to when Penrose's talks about cohomology and he illustrates, Penrose's
triangle. How would he get anyone to see the way he does and point out
the difficulties and say, maybe you have an answer, because I do not
know? Your invited?
So you develop a model, and lets call it a virtual reality. Once you
climb on board how will your world view have changed that the things you
answer seem so different, had you not answer the question without such a
bias? A alien really, I think this was quite suggestive of Feynman to
help others see away into what he was doing.


Feynman:
‘Maxwell discussed … in terms of a model in which the vacuum was
like an elastic … what counts are the equations themselves and not the
model used to get them. We may only question whether the equations are
true or false … If we take away the model he used to build it, Maxwell’s
beautiful edifice stands…’ – Richard P. Feynman, Feynman Lectures on
Physics, v3, c18, p2.

Shut Up and Calculate, you get what was meant.
Maybe, you will invoke different models with analytical functions in
order to help you see differently, add perspectives that without
considering Feynman's approach, this advancement in thinking would not
take place. We get to these points and move the goal post(we get stuck),
in order to see where the ole timers left off, and prepares for the
next generation of thinkers? Feynman came to the realization on his own
by correlating insights over a span of hundreds of years, by himself,
not with others, so how did he do that? He is telling us. Like Penrose
is telling us, requires visualization capabilities that have already
been mapped and can be mapped to higher dimensions? What purpose to see
Adinkras that will light the way toward.....???????
Beauty is understood then, when it came to pass, Dirac's equations lead
the way, and Little did we know how Dirac actually used his perception.
It propelled him forward, as it does for Penrose, but the beauty
remains, and how far forward will somebody else with vision help us
toward the next step?
So cosmological you are looking to the past? You look up at the night sky and when were all these messages received in the classical sense but to be an observer of what happened a long time ago.