Thursday, October 19, 2006

The Continuing Saga?

It was Socrates' turn to look puzzled. Oh, wake up. You know what chaos is. Simple deterministic dynamics leading to irregular, random-looking behavior. Butterfly effect. That stuff. Of course, I know that, Socrates said in irritation. No, it was the idea of dynamic logic that was puzzling me. How can logic be dynamic

So in the post before this one, I left "the thought" about the continuing Saga.

Is it so hard that we may not understand what "reductionistic physics" has done for us that we may not look ahead to how this physics will outlay itself in the future?

While I know in my own head how the end of science is not really the end, it is why the continuing saga has yet to be written. That's where I come in? :)

This has been my lesson after spending time with those involved in string theory, that my generalizations may have a deeper insight then what those who live at the same fundamental level, and look at the cosmo in a very ordinary way.

Bee 's thought about the direction of science is not a new one, and having spent considerable time letting those who look at the cosmo, must include, "reductionism," it is not without understanding this "particle shower in nature," that we learnt to appreciate the things of nature as they have been extoll to us from the forbears of research and developement.

How ancient these notions on the "ray of creation that you might add other views here. It must be the one of physics developing. Even though I hold such "ancient views" I am reminded, that the things of nature already exist out there. We just had to recognize them.

On the most fundamental level, I showed the rainbow, yet as mankind moved into space we now see where the space shuttle has an enormous advantage to see these interactions from the sun on our bio-sphere.

So back to the continuing Saga.

I gave some indicaton of this in posts delivered at cosmic variance in terms of how we look to the very nature of the sun/star and what it has sent to us for examination.

All of these effects "unified" helps us to understand somethng very profound about our dealings with nature, and that Is where I am headed in terms of the continung saga.

Can I call it "the prediction," that every step I outlay from this point on is the culmination of science and physics developing an attitude and comprehension about how nature has embued us with more insights/ideas/concepts/theoretics, that we just did not recognize it?? It was always there, and that we just had to recognize it?

So if you think this too "generalized," then think about what happens at the very core of the sun/star, and then you tell me if the examples I have given are not worth thinking about, that science indeed has more to offer?


  1. It was always there, and that we just had to recognize it?

    So, are theories made by us? Or are they out there, waiting to be found? Do we make our reality by using a specific theory? Or is reality a fixed entity that awaits to be discovered?

    Thanks for the link.


  2. Just figured out how to use blog comments. Wouldn't work just by clicking on post commment. Don't know why.

    It's very difficult for the layman perspective here to keep sensibility with all ths information out there.

    So I struggle to cope and try and make sense.

    I think this goes back to whether mathematics is "invented or discovered?"

    Is there a difference between invention and discovery?

    Undercut Philosophical basis , "What have you?"

    If one was headed back to the very beginning of what spacetime "is" would the mathematics not say much about this in it's previous discriptions before it became "this" frame of reference?