Pictorial representations can be very useful in presenting information or assisting reasoning. Venn diagram is an example. Venn diagrams are used to represent classes of objects, and they can also assist us in reasoning about the relations between these classes. They are named after the English mathematician John Venn (1834 – 1923), who was a fellow at Cambridge University.

A few may have taken in the link supplied to a lecture given by Thomas Campbell with regard to his MBT book he had written. Now, I was drawn to the idea of a Venn diagram presented in his lecture and the idea of how one might have use this diagram as a question about the universe and it’s subsets? How would you draw it?

I give a current posting by Sean Carroll with regards to his opinion on a book written by Lawrence Krauss. So there all these theories about the nature of the universe and some scientists of course have their opinions.

…………Or not, of course. We should be good empiricists and be open to the possibility that what we think of as the universe really does exist within some larger context. But then we could presumably re-define that as the universe, and be stuck with the same questions. As long as you admit that there is more than one conceivable way for the universe to be (and I don’t see how one could not), there will always be some end of the line for explanations. I could be wrong about that, but an insistence that “the universe must explain itself” or some such thing seems like a completely unsupportable a priori assumption. (Not that anyone in this particular brouhaha seems to be taking such a stance.) SEE:A Universe from Nothing?

Physicists have proposed several theories to explain why Λ is so small. One of the most popular — the “anthropic principle” — states that Λ is randomly set and has very different values in different parts of the universe (figure 1). We happen to live in a rare region, or “bubble”, where Λ has the value we observe. This value has allowed stars, planets and therefore life to develop. However, this theory is also unsatisfactory for many scientists because it would be better to be able to calculate Λ from first principles.

See also:

• Plinko Sounds a Bit like the Galton Board

• Justified true belief

• Memories Arise Out of a Equilibrium

Dialogos of Eide

The multi-award-winning company, Wilkinson Eyre Architects, designed Queen Mary University of London’s Mathematical Sciences Building after working on the design of the university’s new Humanities Building.

The architecture practice carefully considered the issue of sustainability when designing the £1.5million refurbishment of the Mathematical Sciences’ block. The glazed exterior acts as a form of protection for the new foyer against noise and pollution. Additionally, floor grilles provide the building with a suitable ventilation system.

The patterned paneling which consists of wide and narrow diamonds on the Mathematical Sciences Building honours the work of Sir Roger Penrose who is a visiting professor at the university and a mathematical physicist. Penrose tiling is important in the world of physics and chemistry, and particularly in relation to the study of quasicrystals. Scientists have been examining the qualities of these quasicrystals for the past three decades.

I am not sure what I can add other then what I have already been saying toward logical deduction….I still need to get a handle on the essence of what is being said here in opening thread.

So with what I looked at, can we say that the deductive recognition of lets say symmetry would be in contrast to how you might look at the world in a relativistic sense versus Platonism.

See: Against Symmetry

This setting was used more I think in terms of how a scientist is explaining himself and his relationship with the way in which he had approached science…..yet I could see there were scientist who had adopted the Platonic Tradition. Example of Penrose and Coxeter were demonstrative of this idea?

5.4.3 Platonism and Relativism

Platonism is a family of views that get their name because they involve entities–propositions, properties, sets–which, like Plato’s Forms, are held to be abstract, immutable things that exist outside space and time. On many platonistic approaches, concepts express abstract properties and beliefs are relations between people and abstract propositions. This suggests a way around some types of relativism, since people in quite different cultures could have many of the same beliefs (because they could believe the same abstract propositions), and a belief would be true just in case the immutable proposition it expresses is true.

The relativist may reply that platonistic accounts lead to severe difficulties in epistemology and semantics. The problem is that we are physical organisms living in a spatio-temporal world, and we cannot interact causally (or in any other discernible way) with abstract, causally inert things. Moreover, few people are aware of having any special cognitive faculty that puts them in touch with a timeless realm of abstract objects, neuroscientists have never found any part of the brain that subserves such an ability, such a view is not suggested by what is known about the ways children acquire concepts and beliefs, and nothing in physics suggests any way in which a physical system (the brain) can make any sort of contact with causally inert, non-physical objects. Moreover, if our minds cannot make epistemic contact with such things, it is difficult to see how our words and linguistic practices can make semantic contact with them.

None of this proves that abstract propositions don’t exist, but it shows it isn’t obvious that they do. There have been few debates between relativists and platonists over such matters, however, perhaps because the two views lie so far apart that their proponents cannot easily engage one another.

So these were two positions that were adopted within the push toward understanding the basis of science and it’s mathematics.

In theory model development was pushed forward on the basis of such adoptions. Loop Quantum Gravity?

Quasicrystal: Prof. Dan Shechtman

Just throwing some stuff together in order to understand the extent of relativism as a universal truth, while seeking to understand the subjective realism that make up our individuality. As a layman I do not know if it will be useful under that admittance. You can judge for yourself of course.

Most people think of “seeing” and “observing” directly with their senses. But for physicists, these words refer to much more indirect measurements involving a train of theoretical logic by which we can interpret what is “seen.”- Lisa Randall

If one was to solidify some basis to truth how would this be done? The question of a logic oriented view for me saw a basis in what Penrose was explaining using his Twistors, as a foundation in incorporating Fuzzy logic?

While examining the psychological model of Venn logic and TA combined, it was important that there be some relative framework for such a subjective interpretation of a logic orientated world. How subjectively could this have been managed?

Perspective of the Theoretical Scientist

So you have this history and theoretical perspective that sees the world in one way or another? How do you reduce it to a process through Computing that establishes a basis in machining the effects of [and\or-so that we say a statement is .7 true and .3 false.]? We’ve created a space in between a true and false statement?

DNA computing is a form of computing which uses DNA, biochemistry and molecular biology, instead of the traditional silicon-based computer technologies. DNA computing, or, more generally, molecular computing, is a fast developing interdisciplinary area. Research and development in this area concerns theory, experiments and applications of DNA computing See:DNA computing

Entanglement then provides for other understanding then of a framework that sees the interrogation of a subjective world?

Do we selectively ignore other models from artificial intelligence such as Zadeh’s Fuzzy Logic? This is a logic used to model perception and used in newly designed “smart” cameras. Where standard logic must give a true or false value to every proposition, fuzzy logic assigns a certainty value between zero and one to each of the propositions, so that we say a statement is .7 true and .3 false. Is this theory selectively ignored to support our theories? Ideas on Quantum Interrogation

Geometry Leads us to the Truth?

Part of the realism here for me is the idea that such patterns established deep within our psyche are inherent in each of us as an image first to our awareness, but encompasses a geometric patten of sorts. This was part of the work I did on myself as I explored the realm of dreams. The idea then manifested in what was the basis of this thought process as mandala in origins. A historical vision of an ancient idea of model building. In today’s world I thought this as appropriate toward how theoretical ideas are built around a whole history of science and information.

Dialogos of Eide

Inspired on Escher’s works. A free vision on how could be his workplace.

I was made aware of This Youtube video by Clifford of Asymptotia. He also linked, Lines and Colors.

Dialogos of Eide

Roger Penrose discusses his experiment on the BBC (25 minutes in)

Melvyn Bragg examines the physics of reality. When Quantum Mechanics was developed in the early 20th century reality changed forever. In the quantum world particles could be in two places at once, they disappeared for no reason and reappeared in unpredictable locations, they even acted differently according to whether we were watching them. It was so shocking that Erwin Schrodinger, one of the founders of Quantum Theory, said “I don’t like it and I’m sorry I ever had anything to do with it.” He even developed an experiment with a cat to show how absurd it was.

Quantum Theory was absurd, it disagreed with the classical physics of Newton and Einstein and it clashed with our experience of the everyday world. Footballs do not disappear without reason, cats do not split into two and shoes do not act differently when we are not looking at them. Or do they? Eighty years later we are still debating whether the absurd might actually be true See: The Physics of Reality

See Also:

• The Penrose interpretation
• The Planck length as a minimal length

Dialogos of Eide

The main reason I don’t believe in God is the missing evidence. There could logically be no evidence that he doesn’t exist, so I can only go by the fact that, so far, I’ve discovered no evidence that he does: I have had no personal experience of being spoken to by God and I see nothing in the world around me, wherever I look in history or science or art or anywhere else, to persuade me that it was the work of God rather than of nature.

To that extent, I’m an atheist. I would have to agree, though, that God might exist but be in hiding (and I can understand why – with his record, so would I be). If I knew more, I’d be able to make an informed guess about that. But the amount of things I do know is the merest tiny flicker of a solitary spark in the vast encircling darkness that represents all the things I don’t know, so he might well be out there in the dark. As I can’t say for certain that he isn’t, I’d have to say I am an agnostic.

- Philip Pullman (children’s author)

I don’t believe in leprechauns, pixies, werewolves, jujus, Thor, Poseidon, Yahweh, Allah or the Trinity. For the same reason in every case: there is not the tiniest shred of evidence for any of them, and the burden of proof rests with those who wish to believe.

Even given no evidence for specific gods, could we make a case for some unspecified “intelligent designer” or “prime mover” or begetter of “something rather than nothing”? By far the most appealing version of this argument is the biological one – living things do present a powerful illusion of design. But that is the very version that Darwin destroyed. Any theist who appeals to “design” of living creatures simply betrays his ignorance of biology. Go away and read a book. And any theist who appeals to biblical evidence betrays his ignorance of modern scholarship. Go away and read another book.

As for the cosmological argument, whose God goes under names such as Prime Mover or First Cause, the physicists are closing in, with spellbinding results. Even if there remain unanswered questions – where do the fundamental laws and constants of physics come from? – obviously it cannot help to postulate a designer whose existence poses bigger questions than he purports to solve. If science fails, our best hope is to build a better science. The answer will lie neither in theology nor – its exact equivalent – reading tea leaves.

In any case, it is a fatuously illogical jump from deistic Unmoved Mover to Christian Trinity, with the Son being tortured and murdered because the Father, for all his omniscience and omnipotence, couldn’t think of a better way to forgive “sin”.

Equally unconvincing are those who believe because it comforts them (why should truth be consoling?) or because it “feels right”. Cherie Blair ["I'm a believer", New Statesman, 18 April] may stand for the “feels right” brigade. She bases her belief on “an understanding of something that my head cannot explain but my heart knows to be true”. She aspires to be a judge. M’lud, I cannot provide the evidence you require. My head cannot explain why, but my heart knows it to be true.

Why is religion immune from the critical standards that we apply not just in courts of law, but in every other sphere of life?

- Richard Dawkins (biologist and public intellectual)

The most common impediment to clear thinking that a non-believer must confront is the idea that the burden of proof can be fairly placed on his shoulders: “How do you know there is no God? Can you prove it? You atheists are just as dogmatic as the fundamentalists you criticise.” This is nonsense: even the devout tacitly reject thousands of gods, along with the cherished doctrines of every religion but their own. Every Christian can confidently judge the God of Zoroaster to be a creature of fiction, without first scouring the universe for evidence of his absence. Absence of evidence is all one ever needs to banish false knowledge. And bad evidence, proffered in a swoon of wishful thinking, is just as damning.

But honest reasoning can lead us further into the fields of unbelief, for we can prove that books such as the Bible and the Quran bear no trace of divine authorship. We know far too much about the history of these texts to accept what they say about their own origins. And just imagine how good a book would be if it had been written by an omniscient Being.

The moment one views the contents of scripture in this light, one can reject the doctrines of Judaism, Christianity and Islam definitively. The true authors of God’s eternal Word knew nothing about the origins of life, the relationship between mind and brain, the causes of illness, or how best to create a viable, global civilisation in the 21st century. That alone should resolve every conflict between religion and science in the latter’s favour, until the end of the world.

In fact, the notion that any ancient book could be an infallible guide to living in the present gets my vote for being the most dangerously stupid idea on earth.

What remains for us to discover, now and always, are those truths about our world that will allow us to survive and fully flourish. For this, we need only well-intentioned and honest inquiry – love and reason. Faith, if it is ever right about anything, is right by accident.

- Sam Harris (neuroscientist)

I do not believe that there are any such things as gods and goddesses, for exactly the same reasons as I do not believe there are fairies, goblins or sprites, and these reasons should be obvious to anyone over the age of ten.

- AC Grayling (philosopher)

I do not believe in God – an intelligent, all-powerful being who cares about human beings – because the idea seems to me to be silly. The positive arguments that have been given for belief in God all appear to me as silly as the proposition they are intended to prove. Fortunately, in some parts of the world, religious belief has weakened enough so that people no longer kill each other over differences in this silliness.

It is past time that the human race should grow up, enjoying what is good in life, including the pleasure of learning how the world works, and freeing ourselves altogether from supernatural silliness in facing the real problems and tragedies of our lives.

- Steven Weinberg (nobel prize-winning physicist)

In part because there is no evidence for a God (sentimental longing, desperation, ignorance and angst are not evidence) and in part because science is showing that it is capable of answering all the questions that the religious have argued, without any evidence, require the activities of a God, I dismiss holy scripture as evidence. I also discount the argument that a majority of people in the world claim to be believers, because truth is not decided by majority vote.

I acknowledge the power of cultural conditioning, especially when it is larded on to the young and impressionable, and can even accept that there might be an evolutionary advantage in believing; but neither is an argument for the truth of the existence of a God. Moreover, the horrors of the world, both personal and societal, do not convince me that the creation is an act of infinite benevolence.

- Peter Atkins (chemist & public intellectual)

I don’t believe in the dogmas of any religion (or any that I have ever heard of), because the associated myths sound far too fanciful and arbitrary for them to have any credibility, in my opinion. If you ask me about a belief in some more abstract notion of “God”, I would, of course, have to know what you mean by such a term.

I suppose the closest I could get to anything that bears any relation to the kind of notion that the term “God” might be used for would be something along the lines of Platonist ideals. These could include some sort of objective moral standpoint that is independent of ourselves, and not simply definable in terms of what might be of benefit to human society. This would imply, for instance, that conscious beings such as elephants would have rights, in addition to those of humans.

I am also prepared to accept that there might be objective (“Platonic”) elements involved in artistic achievement, and certainly I assign a Platonic objectivity to truth (especially unambiguous mathematical truth). But I am not at all sure that it is helpful to attach the term “God” to any of this. Moreover, thinking of God as a benevolent creator is particularly misleading, as is made clear, in my opinion, by the problem of the existence of evil – or natural, indiscriminate calamity.

If “God” is to be a sentient being of some sort, I also find that incredible. A conscious being would have to be one that I could just about imagine myself being. I certainly cannot imagine myself being “God”!

- Sir Roger Penrose (physicist)

I not only do not believe in God, I am almost 100 per cent certain the God of Abraham worshipped by Jews, Christians and Muslims does not exist. This God supposedly plays such an important role in the universe that there should be evidence he exists. There is nothing in the realm of human knowledge that requires anything supernatural, anything beyond matter, to describe our observations.
Furthermore, religion is immoral. It is bad for individuals and bad for society.

- Victor Stenger (particle physicist)

There is simply no good data pointing to a supernatural being who either takes an interest in the world or actively affects it. Isn’t it curious that all the big miracles, resurrections and ascensions to heaven occurred in the distant past, documented by single, dubious books? Besides, the “truth claims” of the various faiths about prophets, virgin births, angels, heaven and the like are not only scientifically unbelievable, but conflicting, so that most or all of them must be wrong. To Christians, Jesus is absolutely the scion and substance of God; to Muslims, that’s blasphemy, punishable by execution.

The more science learns about the world, the less room there is for God. Natural selection dispelled the last biology-based argument for divinity – the “design” of plants and animals. Now physics is displacing other claims, showing how the universe could have begun from “nothing” without celestial help.

There’s not only an absence of evidence for God, but good evidence against him. To the open-minded, religions were clearly invented by human beings to support their fervent wishes for what they wanted to be true.

Our very world testifies constantly against God. Take natural selection, a process that is cruel, painful and wasteful. After Darwin’s idea displaced Genesis-based creationism, the theological sausage-grinder – designed to transform scientific necessities into religious virtues – rationalised why it was better for God to have used natural selection to produce human beings. Needless to say, that argument doesn’t fit with an all-loving God. Equally feeble are theological explanations for other suffering in the world. If there is a God, the evidence points to one who is apathetic – or even a bit malicious.

To believers, testing the “God hypothesis” is not an option because they will accept no observations that disprove it. While I can imagine scientific evidence for God, even evidence that would make me a believer (a reappearing Jesus who instantly restores the limbs of amputees would do), there is no evidence – not even the Holocaust – which can dispel their faith in a good and loving God.

- Jerry Coyne (biologist)

I am accustomed to the idea that truth claims ought to be justified with some reasonable evidence: if one is going to claim, for instance, that a Jewish carpenter was the son of a God, or that there is a place called heaven where some ineffable, magical part of you goes when you die, then there ought to be some credible reason to believe that. And that reason ought to be more substantial than that it says so in a big book.

Religious claims all seem to short-circuit the rational process of evidence-gathering and testing and the sad thing is that many people don’t see a problem with that, and even consider it a virtue. It is why I don’t just reject religion, but actively oppose it in all its forms – because it is fundamentally a poison for the mind that undermines our critical faculties.

Religious beliefs are lazy jokes with bad punchlines. Why do you have to chop off the skin at the end of your penis? Because God says so. Why should you abstain from pork, or shrimp, or mixing meat and dairy, or your science classes? Because they might taint your relationship with God. Why do you have to revere a bit of dry biscuit? Because it magically turns into a God when a priest mutters over it. Why do I have to be good? Because if you aren’t, a God will set you on fire for all eternity.

These are ridiculous propositions. The whole business of religion is clownshoes freakin’ moonshine, hallowed by nothing but unthinking tradition, fear and superstitious behaviour, and an establishment of con artists who have dedicated their lives to propping up a sense of self-importance by claiming to talk to an in­visible big kahuna.

It’s not just fact-free, it’s all nonsense.

- PZ Myers (biologist & blogger)

(source)

*******

“The end he (the artist) strives for is something else than a perfectly executed print. His aim is to depict dreams, ideas, or problems in such a way that other people can observe and consider them.” – M.C. Escher

I too have always been interested at the idea of what we can see deeper then what we observe on the surface. As if an abstraction in the geometry may be leading when considering Polytopes and allotrope s or even Penrose Tilings as to the Truth?:)

A remarkable mosaic of atoms In quasicrystals, we find the fascinating mosaics of the Arabic world reproduced at the level of atoms: regular patterns that never repeat themselves. However, the configuration found in quasicrystals was considered impossible, and Dan Shechtman had to fight a fierce battle against established science. The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2011 has fundamentally altered how chemists conceive of solid matter. See: The Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2011 Dan Shechtman

I do not think one can ever imagine what goes through my mind and I guess that’s part of my artistic journey is to better learn how to describe what I am seeing. It goes back some time as to what I learn about myself and how some of these geometers see. I did not ever feel apart from them as I tried to look deeper into reality and see what the basis is and how  we might describe that.

You must also know I now sport an interesting tattoo that I will share shortly. Maybe even consider it as a line break, and as a pointer. You’ll see why when I upload picture. So,  that has been my thing when I look at all this science and those espouse the teaching of,  that I tried to find my place in it. I mean I could be so wrong in a long of things…..but isn’t that part of the evolution of being?  Learning about those mistakes and dealing with the responsibility of finding that truth within self?

If the heart was free from the impurities of sin, and therefore lighter than the feather, then the dead person could enter the eternal afterlife.

My second tattoo will be as in the picture showing below on this blog site demonstrating and seen above is an ancient idea about “our heart” in relation to “the truth.”  How we weight that against one another and how the choices we make will have us asking whether we acted in accordance with that truth. That is “the final judgement” and if this is understood then we can access whether or not we have much more to learn. I know that setting right past mistakes is not an easy thing but if you at least start then that is part of the success of not of having to repeat them. Maybe repeat many times until you finally actually get it.

Well then,how does one simplify that picture of such Judgement in the Hall of Ma’at as to know that this message is alive and well in today’s world and just as valid? How well will the tattooist portray this design? I’ll have to give it to her  so she has some time to look at it and decipher.:)

 See Also:

• Fulleranes and Allotropes
• Coxeter and Plato’s Cave

Dialogos of Eide

Penrose’s Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, from one of his Pittsburgh lecture slides in June, 2009. Photo by Bryan W. Roberts Also see: BEFORE THE BIG BANG: AN OUTRAGEOUS NEW PERSPECTIVE AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR PARTICLE PHYSICS

……. (CCC) is a cosmological model in the framework of general relativity, advanced by the theoretical physicist Sir Roger Penrose.^[1][2] In CCC, the universe undergoes a repeated cycle of death and rebirth, with the future timelike infinity of each previous universe being identified with the Big Bang singularity of the next.^[3] Penrose outlines this theory in his book Cycles of Time: An Extraordinary New View of the Universe.

Contents 1 Basic Construction 2 Physical Implications 3 Empirical Tests 4 See also 5 References

Basic Construction

Penrose’s basic construction^[4] is to paste together a countable sequence of open FLRW spacetimes, each representing a big bang followed by an infinite future expansion. Penrose noticed that the past conformal boundary of one copy of FLRW spacetime can be “attached” to the future conformal boundary of another, after an appropriate conformal rescaling. In particular, each individual FLRW metric g_ab is multiplied by the square of a conformal factor Ω that approaches zero at timelike infinity, effectively “squashing down” the future conformal boundary to a conformally regular hypersurface (which is spacelike if there is a positive cosmological constant, as we currently believe). The result is a new solution to Einstein’s equations, which Penrose takes to represent the entire Universe, and which is composed of a sequence of sectors that Penrose calls “aeons.”

Physical Implications

The significant feature of this construction for particle physics is that, since baryons are obey the laws of conformally invariant quantum theory, they will behave in the same way in the rescaled aeons as in the original FLRW counterparts. (Classically, this corresponds to the fact that light cone structure is preserved under conformal rescalings.) For such particles, the boundary between aeons is not a boundary at all, but just a spacelike surface that can be passed across like any other. Fermions, on the other hand, remain confined to a given aeon. This provides a convenient solution to the black hole information paradox; according to Penrose, fermions must be irreversibly converted into radiation during black hole evaporation, to preserve the smoothness of the boundary between aeons.

The curvature properties of Penrose’s cosmology are also highly desirable. First, the boundary between aeons satisfies the Weyl curvature hypothesis, thus providing a certain kind of low-entropy past as required by statistical mechanics and by observation. Second, Penrose has calculated that a certain amount of gravitational radiation should be preserved across the boundary between aeons. Penrose suggests this extra gravitational radiation may be enough to explain the observed cosmic acceleration without appeal to a dark energy matter field.

Empirical Tests

In 2010, Penrose and V. G. Gurzadyan published a preprint of a paper claiming that observations of the cosmic microwave background made by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe and the BOOMERanG experiment showed concentric anomalies which were consistent with the CCC hypothesis, with a low probability of the null hypothesis that the observations in question were caused by chance.^[5] However, the statistical significance of the claimed detection has since been questioned. Three groups have independently attempted to reproduce these results, but found that the detection of the concentric anomalies was not statistically significant.^[6][7][8]

See also

• Conformal geometry
• Cyclic model
• Black hole information paradox

References

1. ^ Palmer, Jason (2010-11-27). “Cosmos may show echoes of events before Big Bang”. BBC News. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11837869. Retrieved 2010-11-27. 
2. ^ Penrose, Roger (June 2006). “Before the big bang: An outrageous new perspective and its implications for particle physics”. Edinburgh, Scotland: Proceedings of EPAC 2006. p. 2759-2767. http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/accelconf/e06/PAPERS/THESPA01.PDF. Retrieved 2010-11-27. 
3. ^ Cartlidge, Edwin (2010-11-19). “Penrose claims to have glimpsed universe before Big Bang”. physicsworld.com. http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/44388. Retrieved 2010-11-27. 
4. ^ Roger Penrose (2006). “Before the Big Bang: An Outrageous New Perspective and its Implications for Particle Physics”. Proceedings of the EPAC 2006, Edinburgh, Scotland: 2759-2762. http://accelconf.web.cern.ch/accelconf/e06/PAPERS/THESPA01.PDF. 
5. ^ Gurzadyan VG; Penrose R (2010-11-16). “Concentric circles in WMAP data may provide evidence of violent pre-Big-Bang activity”. arΧiv:1011.3706 [astro-ph.CO]. 
6. ^ Wehus IK; Eriksen HK (2010-12-07). “A search for concentric circles in the 7-year WMAP temperature sky maps”. arΧiv:1012.1268 [astro-ph.CO]. 
7. ^ Moss A; Scott D; Zibin JP (2010-12-07). “No evidence for anomalously low variance circles on the sky”. arΧiv:1012.1305 [astro-ph.CO]. 
8. ^ Hajian A (2010-12-8). “Are There Echoes From The Pre-Big Bang Universe? A Search for Low Variance Circles in the CMB Sky”. arΧiv:1012.1656 [astro-ph.CO].

See Also: Penrose’s CCC cosmology is either inflation or gibberish

Dialogos of Eide

Dark circles indicate regions in space where the cosmic microwave background has temperature variations that are lower than average. The features hint that the universe was born long before the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago and had undergone myriad cycles of birth and death before that time. See: Cosmic rebirth

Dialogos of Eide

Is consciousness connected to the fine structure of the universe?

On March 27 I interviewed Dr. Stuart Hameroff of the Center for Consciousness Studies of the University of Arizona. Here is an edited transcript of that interview.

Deepak Chopra

Stuart Hameroff

Excerpts from the interview:

“The only reality is mind and observations. But observations are not of things, to see the universe as it really is, we must abandon our tendency to conceptualize observations as things”.

DEEPAK: So you know when I’m actually looking at a rose, what is happening is a spacetime event in consciousness.

STUART: Yes, and it also relates to Alfred North Whitehead, who said that the universe isn’t made of things, it’s made of processes, of events. Everything is events, and some of those events are conscious events. He called them occasions, occasions of experience.

STUART: I think when we meditate or are in altered states, we shift to a higher frequency, which is also higher intensity, higher experience. Kind of like going from red to ultraviolet, something like that. When that happens, the outside world can slow down in perspective. So people in car accidents for example, when the car is spinning, report that the world slows down, because they have gone from say 40 to 80 conscious moments per second. The perception of the outside world appears slower. Great athletes say that when they’re playing well, the other team is in slow motion. Michael Jordan said that.

they have found the physical existence of the magically beautiful E8-pattern – displayed in the image here below – one of the most complex mathematical concepts in the world which took weeks for a hall of super-computers to calculate and resulted in 400 000 printed pages. Researchers have been hoping that E8 is connected to the search for the great Theory of Unification, which shall bring together Einstein’s general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics (which is not possible with todays maths). And now symmetries from this pattern was discovered by a group of German and English physicists when they froze cobalt nitrate to the absolute 0-point, which made the electrons arrange themselves in kind of rows or chains. Then they exposed this to magnetic fields, and in the magnetic fluctuations which evolved the strikingly beautiful E8 pattern was spotted.

by Claudio Rocchini (wikipedia)

I mean, if it came down to looks I’d so far wote for this pattern to be the door to open the true Unification theory, it is just really amazing, isn’t it?!

This is not the first time mathematicians has calculated something which physicists did not yet know of, or they even considered impossible. The last time such a discovery was made was in 1974 by Sir Roger Penrose, who I actually made an 1 hour long interview with in the Vienna Riesenrad back in 2004. He calculated something called quasicrystals, a pattern of two shapes which can repeat endlessly without repeating a pattern. This was considered completely impossible, but was later found, for example in a type of stone in Siberia, and has even shown to have quite some practical use to it.

I’ve been refreshing my knowledge on quantum mechanics during the past week, so this discovery came very hand in hand with my thoughts and questions at the moment. Even if I have been warned that Quantum Mechanics does not describe reality, I cannot help but being fascinated by the ontological thoughts connected to this young branch of physic, like the thoughts in the film in my previous post. The fact that human observation decides the outcome of real, physical experiments, no matter on what level, must make anyone ask:

How much of reality do we really create? Does these patterns really exist, or are they created because we expect to find them?

It is like asking:  what comes first, the observer or the particle? And I write “comes” and not “came” but I mean at the beginning of existence, but in Quantum Mechanics time is put out of work, or everything happens at once, or maybe time exists because we imagine that it does, or it is just very much more complex than any of that…

Or really simple – who knows…

What one probably can be quite sure of, is that if the mathematicians had not calculated the E8, the physicists would probably not have found it, since they would not have known what they were looking for.

After returning home from our little vacation, I’ve hunkered down to read, and I thought this would be a good time to come to know of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Canada and how it started up.

As you know I’ve linked the Q2c site coming in September as well as I think after ten years this Institute has done a very good job of promoting a science based view toward the latest in the science frontiers.

Mike Lazaridis Donates Additional $50 Million to Perimeter Institute

In his remarks on behalf of the Government of Ontario, The Honourable John Wilkinson, Minister of Research and Innovation said: “Ontario’s $3B Innovation Agenda focuses on our government acting as a catalyst to support our top researchers and entrepreneurs – extraordinary people like Mike Lazaridis who are leading the way to turn groundbreaking ideas and innovation into Ontario’s next generation of jobs. Ontario’s commitment to fundamental and applied research has not only been informed but also inspired by Mike’s personal commitment to innovation, and his contributions to the Perimeter Institute. That’s why our government has already invested over $65M to support this important initiative. This new investment will strengthen the Institute and the government-industry partnerships that have made it possible, and help us to continue to attract the world-class talent and the scientific knowledge Ontario needs to compete in the 21st century.”See: Mike Lazaridis Donates Additional $50 Million to Perimeter Institute

Now you should know that I had received earlier notice of Howard’s book from Bee of Backreaction. I have always been under the notion that what can be learnt can be learnt from all ages and there is no one aspect that we can not learn from, when we read and write about the thoughts of bloggers who have something to share with regard to their own journeys.

Bee of Backreaction writes:

The book tells the story of the first years of Perimeter Institute. From Mike Lazaridis’ donation, over the search for a name, for a mission, for a location, the joy of building constructions, the hiring of the first faculty members, the establishment of PI’s public outreach program, and the successful acquisition of governmental funding, to Howard’s departure.

It is very entertainingly written and quite informative in addition, though I admittedly had hoped for more gossip stories about the research and the researchers. The chapter about who talked to whom when and where to pull the strings for governmental support is somewhat lengthy and tiresome, but provides interesting inside views. The book also has an amusing chapter titled “The Trouble with Physicists” about the difficulties in saving scientists from administrating themselves into dysfunctionality. I’m very tempted to quote the funniest paragraphs, but I think you should read the book yourself. It comes with some characterizations of well-known physicists that are quite to the point indeed.

The book is probably more interesting if you know some of the people involved, but besides this it conveys authentically and passionately the fascination, joy and importance of theoretical physics. Overall recommendable. If this was an Amazon review, I’d give 5 stars.Howard Burton: First Principles

I think this is what I like most that what can be revealed in our blogging encounters, that what was written can go out toward the public to what had be done for me in the exposure of a book. I scoured the bookshop shelves for something interesting to read about science. Of course, in this case it was Howard’ Burton’s book First Principles.

At 5:18 PM, April 09, 2009, Blogger Plato said…

I have been watch this developing institution as well. In a weird sort of way feeling quite proud that such an institution was given impetus out of which an appreciation for developing of the science perspective was displayed here in the north, by Lazardis

I really don’t think it is a Ivory Tower that is being described while Turok resides in his position. Just that what you do as a theorist is brought in line with cosmology. It’s much like working the LHC and see that it is working from two perspectives, not just one.

I don’t see anything wrong with that.

Nice to see a few prominent names like Susskind, Hawking and Hooft associated with PI.

When I seen the name of the book and the time you spent at PI Howard I was drawn to the idea of what Condense Matter theorists spoke of, in the same way Robert Laughlin looked at how he might describe the “foundational basis” that Phil was talking about.

Witten and others understood the condensed matter point of view as well.

Again I will read the book once finding it.

Best,

Now you must know something about this lay person who writes this blog. Previous to Howard’s selective title I came across this term when I was looking for some basis as if in equatorial description that was simple to think it has some relation in algorithmic proportion that this could be the basis of all organization thought that could have exploded amongst the computer world. The very essence and core of our being as it was translated to reveal the very nature of who we are as beings.

This is when I came upon my own “Correlations of Cognition,” as the condense matter theorist came to mind. I saw this relevance in how organization could be thought of at a fundamental level. Here in this case, “string theory” held my mind. So when I seen Howard’s title of his book it resonated with me, for this is something that had stayed with me for years as I’ve remained part of the blogging experience of scientists and their engagements with each other.

How is it you then I could not learn to think, that by experiment, that one could line up two counter and oppositional points of view, to see what can be held as truth, and what remains as abstraction of the theoretical division of exploration. You know that what can reside internally as to the mode of operation as to what is self evident(arche), is something that you can place in the external world as well.

So Howard and young students become “mindful of the conduct becoming” and we see this value orientation as to the discussions between scientists. Some students become discouraged and subtle voices strain to speak,”May the ole work horses die?”:)

The Book

Anyway I am on page 47 for those readers that have their books. I recognize some aspect of what Mike Lazaridis likes in Howard as to the letter he wrote, preparing the way for his future as to what? I see this fateful discerningly as to a course of action, to much in how after serving their time in the academics, that they must make their way to the financial responsibility toward providing food and sustenance to the family. No fooling around now is there.

So the letter is a spark of genius in terms of putting it out there for hire. Mike Lazaridis recognized something in himself, in what was written by Howard Burton. Mike Lazaridis although an engineer, was was much like him? Avenues to freedom then were the ability to put together a plan once accepting the job, and Howard ability to get to work even though it didn’t seem like Howard Burton had a job, was exactly what Mike seem to me what he was looking for.

I liked Chris Isham too, in his explanations, and toward this regard, Chris Isham reminded me of Penrose. I found it kind of odd that later on as Howard is making his way gathering information on Institutes that when again visiting Isham that there was a distance and unknowing attribute of who Howard was? I find this strange when mentioning about his wife and who was meet first as to consequence of saying?

Dialogos of Eide

One recalls Chesterton’s reflections on Evolution  or  the “Thought To End All Thoughts.”  It’s astonishing to see someone like Dr. Barr making the same point here that Chesterton essentially made some seventy or eighty years prior. I could almost feel the Great One chuckling as I read the Barr essay.

However, the story is really not so simple for here again (after Chesterton’s time) the plot has twisted. Two of the greatest discoveries of the twentieth century cast considerable doubt upon, and some would say refute, the contention that the mind of man can be explained as a mere biochemical machine (Chesterton was refuting it on a rational or theological basis).

The first of these discoveries that Dr. Barr offers is quantum theory. In the traditional interpretation of quantum theory — sometimes also called the “Copenhagen,” “standard,” or “orthodox” interpretation — one must, to avoid paradoxes or absurdities, posit the existence of so-called “observers” who lie, at least in part, outside of the description of the world provided by physics. That is, the mathematical formalism which quantum theory uses to make predictions about the physical world cannot be stretched to cover completely the person who is observing that world. What is it about the “observer” that lies beyond physical description? Careful analysis suggests that it is some aspect of his rational mind.

This has led some eminent physicists to say that quantum theory is inconsistent with a materialistic view of the human mind. Eugene Wigner, a Nobel laureate in physics, stated flatly that materialism is not “logically consistent with present quantum mechanics.” Sir Rudolf Peierls, another leading twentieth–century physicist, said, on the basis of quantum theory, “The premise that you can describe in terms of physics the whole function of a human being…including its knowledge, and its consciousness, is untenable. There is still something missing.”

Admittedly, this is a highly controversial view. That is only to be expected, especially given the materialist prejudice that affects a large part of the scientific community. Moreover, the traditional interpretation of quantum theory has aspects that many find disturbing or implausible. Some even think (wrongly, in Dr. Barr’s opinion) that the role it assigns to observers leads to subjectivism or philosophical idealism. Dissatisfaction with the traditional interpretation has led to various rival interpretations and to attempts to modify quantum theory. However, these other ideas are equally controversial. The controversy over quantum theory will not be resolved any time soon, or perhaps ever. But, even if it is not, the fact will remain that there is an argument against materialism that comes from physics itself, an argument that has been advanced and defended by some leading physicists and never refuted.

The second discovery that arguably points to something nonmaterial in man is a revolutionary theorem in mathematical logic proved in 1931 by the Austrian Kurt Gödel, one of the greatest mathematicians of modern times. Gödel’s Theorem concerns the inherent limitations of what are called “formal systems.” Formal systems are essentially systems of symbolic manipulation. Since computers are basically just machines for doing such symbolic manipulations, Gödel’s Theorem has great relevance to what computers and computer programs can do.

It was recognized fairly quickly that Gödel’s Theorem might have something to say about whether the human mind is just a computer — Gödel himself was firmly convinced that it is not. Indeed, he called materialism “a prejudice of our time.” However, he never developed, at least in print, the argument against materialism based on his own theorem. That was first done by the Oxford philosopher John R. Lucas. In 1961, Lucas wrote,

“Gödel’s theorem seems to me to prove that Mechanism is false, that is, that minds cannot be explained as machines. So has it seemed to many other people: almost every mathematical logician I have put the matter to has confessed similar thoughts, but has felt reluctant to commit himself definitely until he could see the whole argument set out, with all objections fully stated and properly met. This I attempt to do.”

Both Gödel’s Theorem and Lucas’ argument are extremely subtle, but we can state the gist of them as follows. Gödel’s Theorem implies that a computer program can be outwitted by someone who understands how it is put together. Lucas observed that if a man were himself a computer program, then by knowing how his own program was put together he could outwit himself, which is a contradiction.

One may explain the Lucas argument in another way. Gödel’s Theorem also showed that it is beyond the power of any computer program that operates by logically consistent rules to tell that it is doing so. However, a human being, Lucas noted, can recognize his own consistency — at least at times — and so must be more than a mere computer.

In recent years, the eminent mathematician and mathematical physicist Sir Roger Penrose has taken up the Lucas argument, further refined it, and answered criticisms that had been leveled at it by mathematicians and philosophers. This has not quieted the criticism. However, the Gödelian argument of Lucas and Penrose, though often attacked, has never been refuted.

Where does this all leave us? After all the twists and turns of scientific history we look around and find ourselves in very familiar surroundings. We find ourselves in a universe that seems to have had a beginning. We find it governed by laws that have a grandeur and sublimity that bespeak design. We find many indications in those laws that we were built in from the beginning. We find that physical determinism is wrong. And we find that the deepest discoveries of modern physics and mathematics give hints, if not proof, that the mind of man has something about it that lies beyond the power of either physics or mathematics to describe.

Chesterton told the story of “an English yachtsman who slightly miscalculated his course and discovered England under the impression that it was an island in the South Seas.” The explorer, he said, “landed (armed to the teeth and speaking by signs) to plant the British flag on that barbaric temple which turned out to be the pavilion at Brighton.” Having braced himself to discover New South Wales, he realized, “with a gush of happy tears, that it was really old South Wales.”

Science has taken us on just such an adventure. Armed not with weapons but with telescopes and particle accelerators, and speaking by the signs and symbols of recondite mathematics, it has brought us to many strange shores and shown us alien and fantastic landscapes. But as we scan the horizon, near the end of the voyage, we have begun to recognize first one and then another of the old familiar landmarks and outlines of our ancestral home. The search for truth always leads us, in the end, back to God.

So ends Dr. Barr’s essay. I know many atheists who refuse to get beyond the notion that any scientific hypothesis rejects the supernatural outright as premise and thereby see Christianity’s role in science as pernicious. What I liked about Dr. Barr’s essay was how it supports the scientific method and rejects supernaturalism but also points out how much of current scientific thought is predicated on an intelligible universe and supports the notion of an intelligent designer or ground of being in the nature of things. While nothing can be flat out proved by the limits of the scientific approach, there is much that points to all of what the Christian senses in the fallen world about him and beyond.

Now that we’ve cleared that up. Ever wondered about the makeup of matter/space/timetravel/theuniverse/blackholes and so on? Physicists are a bit, you know over the top with maths and the like. Have you ever browsed through Stephen Hawking’s; A Brief History Of Time? I struggled with the blurb hence why my Science ramblings never stray much over to the dark-side; Theoretical Physics is pretty hard to understand and don’t get me started on Quantum Theory. Well the basics are fairly simple at least conceptually but In reality It’s a bit of a brain drain.

In fact Nobel Prize Laureate and American physicist Richard Feynman has been credited as saying “If you think you understand Quantum Theory, You don’t understand Quantum Theory”. And that coming from someone who worked on The Manhattan Project.

Anyway Hawking and Feynman aside I’ve more than a few times looked at Sir Roger Penrose’s “The Road to Reality” but as yet haven’t bought it because I’m busy enough with my head in Microbiology text-books without venturing into an 1100+ page book about the laws of the universe.

Anyway, This is going somewhere I promise. I’m an avid listener of Triple J’s Science Mornings with Dr. Karl. And on a show back in 2007 Dr Karl kindly abducted Sir Roger Penrose from a physics convention being held at the time along with an American theoretical physicist Dr Kip Thorne whose made contributions in gravitation physics as well as astrophysics he’s also written a back on blackholes. These guys are the ‘real heavy hitters’ as Dr Karl so eloquently puts it.

It’s not often you get a talk-show scenario with a chance to quiz great minds about the nature of reality amongst other cool things like time travel, black holes and the large hadron collider. Anyway you can download and listen to the podcast of the show for download right here.

Nothing moves faster than the speed of light right? Wrong! Listen to the podcast.

“If we are to believe that neurons are the only things that control the sophisticated actions of animals, then the humble paramecium presents us with a profound problem.

For she swims about her pond with her numerous tiny hair like legs – the cilia – darting in the direction of bacterial food which she senses using a variety of mechanisms, or retreating at the prospect of danger, ready to swim off in another direction. She can also negotiate obstructions by swimming around them.

Moreover, she can apparently even learn from her past experiences – though this most remarkable of her apparent faculties has been disputed by some. How is this achieved by an animal without a single neuron or synapse? Indeed, being but a single cell, and not being a neuron herself, she has no place to accommodate such accessories.

Yet there must indeed be a complicated control system governing the behaviour of a paramecium – or indeed other one-celled animals like amoebas – but it is not a nervous system. The structure responsible is apparently part of what is referred to as the cytoskeleton. As its name suggests, the cytoskeleton provides the framework that holds the cell in shape, but it does much more.

The cilia themselves are the endings of the cytoskeletal fibres, but the cytoskeleton seems also to contain the control system for the cell, in addition to providing ‘conveyer’ belts for the transporting of various molecules from one place to another. In short, the cytoskeleton appears to play a role for the single cell rather like a combination of skeleton, muscle system, legs, blood circulatory system and nervous system all rolled into one!

It is the cytoskeleton’s roll as the cells ‘nervous system’ that will have the main importance for us here. For our own neurons are themselves single cells, and each neuron has its own cytoskeleton! Does this mean that there is a sense in which each individual neuron might itself have something akin to its own ‘personal nervous system’?

This is an intriguing issue, and a number of scientists have been coming round to the view that something of this general nature might actually be true (see Stuart Hameroff pioneering 1987 book Ultimate Computing: Biomolecular Consciousness and Nanotechnology; Also Hameroff and Watt (1982) and numerous articles in the new journal nanobiology)”

Sir Roger Penrose

Mathematical Physicist and Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College.

Excerpt from “Shadows of the Mind”

AS with Einstein, who was Socrates daemon?:)

In Plato’s Apology of Socrates, Socrates claimed to have a daimonion (literally, a “divine something”)[6] that frequently warned him – in the form of a “voice” – against mistakes but never told him what to do

See:Fullerane and Allotropes

Some may even call “hills” mountains. Depends on where they think perspective is heighten in relation to where they see themself in the world, and where a better locations allows for a more expansive views of things. This is psychologically important to realize that inherent inside of us if one does follow the tenet of Know Thyself by Socrates. Such a plan would have been understood in the examination to see a relationship in continuity is topologically important with the world around them. Not be self-centred, but to move progressively in the world may call for understanding this relationship with the environment.

What shall proceed the understanding that the arche is fully understood as the central themes of characters, to see it exemplified in how you now approach the world in your own way? It becomes easier for you to understand, that this “imprint of the concrete in the painting I had selected of the Raphael” was to show such a school of thought, was exemplifying the truer principle of the wisdom seeking, while of course approaching the modern day world based on that Socratic method in science.

But I only show by example, and recognizing this facet of the nature of the individual is more the idea that what ever method you choose that it is consistent and recognizable, becomes second nature to the person seeking answers. Student of Science or Philosophy.

Death of Socrates by Jacques Davidthis picture depicts the closing moments of the life of Socrates. Condemned to death or exile by the Athenian government for his teaching methods which aroused scepticism and impiety in his students, Socrates heroicly rejected exile and accepted death from hemlock.

Self portrait of Jacques-Louis David, 1794, Musée du Louvre

Here the philosopher continues to speak even while reaching for the cup, demonstrating his indifference to death and his unyielding commitment to his ideals. Most of his disciplines and slaves swirl around him in grief, betraying the weakness of emotionalism. His wife is seen only in the distance leaving the prison. Only Plato, at the foot of the bed and Crito grasping his master’s leg, seem in control of themselves.

See:Jacques-Louis David: The Death of Socrates

I think the idea is and can be unique, in that each can develop a process and means to an end( many travel far and wide while they should have never left home), that would allow this creative aspect of being “in the now” has potential. To be able to allow insight to manifest and spread across the mind in such lightning speed. It thusly leaves no doubt. This is a condensible feature of the complexity of information to be distill to it’s essence. IN an abstract world, a rain drop can hold quite an lot of architectural meaning.

For Plato then it was the ideal city-state of Kallipolis

The Philosopher King

Plato defined a philosopher firstly as its eponymous occupation – wisdom-lover. He then distinguishes between one who loves true knowledge as opposed to simple sights or education by saying that a philosopher is the only man who has access to Forms – the archetypal entities that exist behind all representations of the form (such as Beauty itself as opposed to any one particular instance of beauty). It is next and in support of the idea that philosophers are the best rulers that Plato fashions the ship of state metaphor, one of his most often cited ideas (along with his allegory of the cave). “[A] true pilot must of necessity pay attention to the seasons, the heavens, the stars, the winds, and everything proper to the craft if he is really to rule a ship” (The Republic, 6.488d). Plato claims that the sailors (i.e., the people of the city-state over whom the philosopher is the potential ruler) ignore the philosopher’s “idle stargazing” because they have never encountered a true philosopher before.

Stargazers by Paul Rossetti Bjarnson, Pg 102, Chapter XV

***

Ever teacher has their progeny of students as has been exemplified in the context of our modern day scholars. Kip Thorne in relation to John Archibald Wheeler. Stephen Hawking and his doctoral students.

Dennis William Siahou Sciama FRS (November 18, 1926–December 18, 1999) was a British physicist who, through his own work and that of his students, played a major role in developing British physics after the Second World War.

Sciama also strongly influenced Roger Penrose, who dedicated his The Road to Reality to Sciama’s memory. The 1960s group he led in Cambridge (which included Ellis, Hawking, Rees, and Carter), has proved of lasting influence.

I have already established this lineage and subsequent comments in relation to Penrose under this heading to exemplify the relationship and perspective in relation to each other externally in the progressive nature of moving forward in science.

***

For Plato, it is no less an important feature that at Socrates bedside he sees the wisdom of his teacher become the “guiding light source” of all that must exchange between those who hold a value to “dimensional significance in abstract” in our current day, would be able to see the world in a most significant way. It’s no less progressive then, that such an example was given to an extent that the thought process of the Gendankin, would be set before Plato’s own students, as John Wheeler did for his, to see that Aristotle is most selectively announced as a most brilliant student by answering to Plato’s analogy of the Cave. Who becomes an extension of the “arche in principle” as one end being science, and in a open sweeping hand, to all that is for ever exemplify in the “arche contained” in the heading of this blog above.

Plotinus

Plotinus (Greek: Πλωτῖνος) (ca. AD 204–270) was a major philosopher of the ancient world who is widely considered the founder of Neoplatonism (along with his teacher Ammonius Saccas). Much of our biographical information about him comes from Porphyry’s preface to his edition of Plotinus’ Enneads.

Plotinus Theory

Plotinus taught that there is a supreme, totally transcendent “One”, containing no division, multiplicity or distinction; likewise it is beyond all categories of being and non-being. The concept of “being” is derived by us from the objects of human experience called the dyad, and is an attribute of such objects, but the infinite, transcendent One is beyond all such objects, and therefore is beyond the concepts that we derive from them. The One “cannot be any existing thing”, and cannot be merely the sum of all such things (compare the Stoic doctrine of disbelief in non-material existence), but “is prior to all existents”. Thus, no attributes can be assigned to the One. We can only identify it with the Good and the principle of Beauty. [I.6.9]

For example, thought cannot be attributed to the One because thought implies distinction between a thinker and an object of thought (again dyad). Even the self-contemplating intelligence (the noesis of the nous) must contain duality. “Once you have uttered ‘The Good,’ add no further thought: by any addition, and in proportion to that addition, you introduce a deficiency.” [III.8.10] Plotinus denies sentience, self-awareness or any other action (ergon) to the One [V.6.6]. Rather, if we insist on describing it further, we must call the One a sheer Dynamis or potentiality without which nothing could exist. [III.8.10] As Plotinus explains in both places and elsewhere [e.g. V.6.3], it is impossible for the One to be Being or a self-aware Creator God. At [V.6.4], Plotinus compared the One to “light”, the Divine Nous (first will towards Good) to the “Sun”, and lastly the Soul to the “Moon” whose light is merely a “derivative conglomeration of light from the ‘Sun’”. The first light could exist without any celestial body.

While the arche then becomes a understanding and significant addition to ever place that self evident becomes real for the individual then how is it that such an relation cannot be seen in the world as a foundation principle to guarantee that they are on the right track. To see that “correlation of cognition” places a role in the factual attainment of information. No matter how insignificant or trivial the relation, as common knowledge, it becomes a reinforcing measure of how one is adapting and applying this model, which allows confidence to be built in pursuance of knowledge and truth.

Dialogos of Eide

See:

In the past, teleportation has only been possible with particles of light Image: Rainer Blatt

It’s useless sometimes to just lay there while these thoughts accumulate in one’s mind, as one weaves together the picture that is forming, and whence it come from this unification process, and after a time, one then thinks about the abilities of mind to gather and consolidate.

By taking advantage of quantum phenomena such as entanglement, teleportation and superposition, a quantum computer could, in principle, outperform a classical computer in certain computational tasks. Entanglement allows particles to have a much closer relationship than is possible in classical physics. For example, two photons can be entangled such that if one is horizontally polarized, the other is always vertically polarized, and vice versa, no matter how far apart they are. In quantum teleportation, complete information about the quantum state of a particle is instantaneously transferred by the sender, who is usually called Alice, to a receiver called Bob. Quantum superposition, meanwhile, allows a particle to be in two or more quantum states at the same time

So let me begin first by saying that given this process we can connect this world line across the expanse of space, is, more or less the understanding that this is to be the means in which these new forms of communication in science are leading as we expound the future, and what it shall become in our present moments.

See: Central theme is the Sun You can “click” on picture as well, or, use mouse to hover over image, for additional reading

So you look at the sun, and what new ways can we can perceive and accumulating the data of what connects this “distance and time,” one will be all the smarter when they realize that the results of experimental verifications are at present being given, and as such, what shall these examples serve, but to remind one that new experiences continue to bring new innovations to the forefront.

Lightcone Projection- see mathematical basis here for the introduction of what will become the basis of determinations, the “decomposable definition” of these new forms of communication.

The basis for these thoughts are the developing views based on the light cone. It was not my reasons alone in which such an idea was used to support an conjecture about, so, by these very reasons I thought it best to explain what such simultaneity can do as we hold these views about “distance and time” as we follow this world line across the expanse of the universe.

The grey ellipse is moving relativistic sphere, its oblate shape due to Lorentz contraction. Colored ellipse is visual image of the sphere. Background curves are a xy-coordinates grid which is rigidly linked to the sphere. It is shown only at one moment in time.See here for reference and animations.

Okay, so we have this event that happens in time. How are we to measure what the sun is suppose to be, if we did not have some information about the depth of perception that is needed in order to create this image for consumption?

Such comparative views are needed that are current, and, “in experimental stages” to help us discern what it means for “Galactic Communication” which we will employ as we measure the distance of this world line.:)

Such distances “can be elevated in my view,” and such instantaneous recognitions are to be the associative values I place on how we can now see the “bulk perspective” and the graviton’s condensation we can now assign to the cosmos?

As we know from Einstein’s theory of special relativity, nothing can travel faster than c, the velocity of light in a vacuum. The speed of the light that we see generally travels with a slower velocity c/n where n is the refractive index of the medium through which we view the light (in air at sea level, n is approximately 1.00029 whereas in water n is 1.33). Highly energetic, charged particles (which are only constrained to travel slower than c) tend to radiate photons when they pass through a medium and, consequently, can suddenly find themselves in the embarrassing position of actually travelling faster than the light they produce!

The result of this can be illustrated by considering a moving particle which emits pulses of light that expand like ripples on a pond, as shown in the Figure (right). By the time the particle is at the position indicated by the purple spot, the spherical shell of light emitted when the particle was in the blue position will have expanded to the radius indicated by the open blue circle. Likewise, the light emitted when the particle was in the green position will have expanded to the radius indicated by the open green circle, and so on. Notice that these ripples overlap with each other to form an enhanced cone of light indicated by the dotted lines. This is analogous to the idea that leads to a sonic boom when planes such as Concorde travel faster than the speed of sound in air

See:What is Cerenkov Radiation?

It is thusly, that such events in time produce information for us, that help us to look at the universe in new ways, and as such, information can be used to build new devices that penetrate beyond the confines we finds photons experience in their limitations.( please Phil take note of, in bold)

Dialogos of Eide

“I’m a Platonist — a follower of Plato — who believes that one didn’t invent these sorts of things, that one discovers them. In a sense, all these mathematical facts are right there waiting to be discovered.”Donald (H. S. M.) Coxeter

I contrast the nature of Numerical Relativity to the computer and the way we would think human consciousness could have been linked in it’s various ways. Who hasn’t thought that the ingenuity of the thinking mind could not have been considered the Synapse and the Portal to the thinking Mind?:)

Also think about what can be thought here as Gerardus t” Hooft asked as to think about in the limitations of what can be thought in relation to computerizations.

There is something to be said here about what conscious is not limited too. It is by it’s very nature “leading perspective” that we would like to have all these variables included in or assertions of what we can see while providing experimental data to the mind set of those same computerization techniques?

Numerical Relativity Mind Map

So we of course like to see the mind’s ingenuity( computerized or otherwise) when it comes to how it shall interpret what is the road to understanding that gravity is seen in Relativities explanation.

Source:Numerical Relativity Code and Machine Timeline

It is a process by which the world of blackholes come into viewing in it’s most “technical means providing the amount of speed and memory” that would allow us to interpret events in the way we have.

The information has to be mapped to computational methodology in order for us to know what scientific value scan be enshrined in the descriptions of the Blackhole. Imagine that with current technologies we can never go any further then what we can currently for see given the circumstances of this technology?

Source:Expo/Information Center/Directory-Spacetime Wrinkles Map

So on the one hand there is an “realistic version” being mapped according to how we develop the means to visualize of what nature has bestowed upon us in the according to understanding Blackhole’s and their Singularities.

Numerical Relativity and Math Transferance

Part of the advantage of looking at computer animations is knowing that the basis of this vision that is being created, is based on computerized methods and codes, devised, to help us see what Einstein’s equations imply.

Now that’s part of the effort isn’t it, when we see the structure of math, may have also embued a Dirac, to see in ways that ony a good imagination may have that is tied to the abstractions of the math, and allows us to enter into “their portal” of the mind.

NASA scientists have reached a breakthrough in computer modeling that allows them to simulate what gravitational waves from merging black holes look like. The three-dimensional simulations, the largest astrophysical calculations ever performed on a NASA supercomputer, provide the foundation to explore the universe in an entirely new way.

Scientists are watching two supermassive black holes spiral towards each other near the center of a galaxy cluster named Abell 400. Shown in this X-ray/radio composite image are the multi-million degree radio jets emanating from the black holes. Click on image to view large resolution. Credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/AIfA/D.Hudson & T.Reiprich et al.; Radio: NRAO/VLA/NRL

According to Einstein’s math, when two massive black holes merge, all of space jiggles like a bowl of Jell-O as gravitational waves race out from the collision at light speed.

Previous simulations had been plagued by computer crashes. The necessary equations, based on Einstein’s theory of general relativity, were far too complex. But scientists at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., have found a method to translate Einstein’s math in a way that computers can understand.

Quantum Gravity

Now their is a strange set of circumstance here that would leave me to believe, that the area of quantum gravity has lead Numerical Relativity to it’s conclusion? Has the technology made itself feasible enough to explore new experimental data that would allow us to further interpret nature in the way it shows itself? What about at the source of the singularity?

See: Dealing with a 5D World

I would not be fully honest if I did not give you part of the nature of abstract knowledge being imparted to us, if I did not include the “areas of abstractness” to include people who help us draw the dimensional significance to experience in these mathematical ways. It is always good to listen to what they have to say so that we can further developed the understanding of what becomes a deeper recognition of the way nature unfolds of itself.

There are two reasons that having mapped E8 is so important. The practical one is that E8 has major applications: mathematical analysis of the most recent versions of string theory and supergravity theories all keep revealing structure based on E8. E8 seems to be part of the structure of our universe.

The other reason is just that the complete mapping of E8 is the largest mathematical structure ever mapped out in full detail by human beings. It takes 60 gigabytes to store the map of E8. If you were to write it out on paper in 6-point print (that’s really small print), you’d need a piece of paper bigger than the island of Manhattan. This thing is huge. Emphasis and underlined, my addition.

Computer Language and Math Joined from Artistic Impressionism?

Most people think of “seeing” and “observing” directly with their senses. But for physicists, these words refer to much more indirect measurements involving a train of theoretical logic by which we can interpret what is “seen.”- Lisa Randall

THOMAS BANCHOFF has been a professor of mathematics at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, since 1967. He has written two books and fifty articles on geometric topics, frequently incorporating interactive computer graphics techniques in the study of phenomena in the fourth and higher dimensions

The marriage between computer and math language(Banchoff) I would say would be important from the prospective of displaying imaging, seen in the development of abstract language as used in numerical relativity? Accummalated data gained from LIGO operations. Time variable measures?

See:Computer Graphics In Mathematical Research

Dialogos of Eide

What good is a universe without somebody around to look at it?
Robert Dicke

John Archibald Wheeler (born July 9, 1911) is an eminent American theoretical physicist. One of the later collaborators of Albert Einstein, he tried to achieve Einstein’s vision of a unified field theory. He is also known as the coiner of the popular name of the well known space phenomenon, the black hole.

There is always somebody who is the teacher and from them, their is a progeny. It would not be right not to mention John Archibald Wheeler. Or not to mention some of his students.

Notable students
Demetrios Christodoulou
Richard Feynman
Jacob Bekenstein
Robert Geroch
Bei-Lok Hu
John R. Klauder
Charles Misner
Milton Plesset
Kip Thorne
Arthur Wightman
Hugh Everett
Bill Unruh

COSMIC SEARCH: How did you come up with the name “black hole”?

John Archibald Wheeler:It was an act of desperation, to force people to believe in it. It was in 1968, at the time of the discussion of whether pulsars were related to neutron stars or to these completely collapsed objects. I wanted a way of emphasizing that these objects were real. Thus, the name “black hole”.

The Russians used the term frozen star—their point of attention was how it looked from the outside, where the material moves much more slowly until it comes to a horizon.* (*Or critical distance. From inside this distance there is no escape.) But, from the point of view of someone who’s on the material itself, falling in, there’s nothing special about the horizon. He keeps on going in. There’s nothing frozen about what happens to him. So, I felt that that aspect of it needed more emphasis.

It is important to me to understand some of the history of the Blackhole, and the students who went on to develop the very ideas around them. To see how they interconnect at one time or another, to provide for the very insights from such gatherings.

Stephen Hawking’s says:

“Roger Penrose and I worked together on the large scale structure of space and time, including singularities and black holes. We pretty much agree on the classical theory of theory of relativity but disagreements began to emerge when we got into quantum gravity. We now have different approaches to the world, physical and mental. Basically, he is a Platonist believing that’s there’s a unique world of ideas that describes a unique physical reality. I on the other hand, am a positivist who believes that physical theories are just mathematical models we construct, and it is meaningless to ask if they correspond to reality; just whether they predict observations.”
( Chapter Six-The Large, the Small and the Human Mind-Roger Penrose-Cambridge University Press-1997)

See: Phil Warnell’s comment.

Black hole information paradox

Whereas Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne firmly believe that information swallowed by a black hole is forever hidden from the outside universe, and can never be revealed even as the black hole evaporates and completely disappears,

And whereas John Preskill firmly believes that a mechanism for the information to be released by the evaporating black hole must and will be found in the correct theory of quantum gravity,

Therefore Preskill offers, and Hawking/Thorne accept, a wager that:

When an initial pure quantum state undergoes gravitational collapse to form a black hole, the final state at the end of black hole evaporation will always be a pure quantum state.

The loser(s) will reward the winner(s) with an encyclopedia of the winner’s choice, from which information can be recovered at will.

Stephen W. Hawking, Kip S. Thorne, John P. Preskill
Pasadena, California, 6 February 1997

Drawing Credit: XMM-Newton, ESA, NASA-Image sourced from: Pictured above is an artist’s illustration of a black hole surrounded by an accretion disk.

The black hole Information Paradox results from the combination of quantum mechanics and general relativity. It suggests that physical information could “disappear” in a black hole. It is a contentious subject since it violates a commonly assumed tenet of science—that information cannot be destroyed. If it is true, then cause and effect become unrelated, and nothing science knows, not even our memories, can be trusted.

Before the Big Bang

Professor Sir Roger Penrose, OM, FRS (born 8 August 1931) Before the Big Bang

Three Different Views of Quantum Weirdness
(and What It Means)

A: According to the orthodox view of quantum mechanics, called the Copenhagen interpretation, a system (represented here by a child’s block) does not occupy a definite state or location until it is measured. Before then it is just a blur of overlapping possibilities.

B: The many worlds interpretation insists that the system occupies all its possible states but that every one of them exists in its own alternate universe. Each universe sees one state only, which is why we never observe the block in two states at once.

C: In Penrose’s interpretation, gravity holds our reality together. In each potential state, the block generates a separate gravitational field. Over time, the energy required to maintain these multiple fields causes the block to settle into one state only—the one that we observe.

See:If an Electron Can Be in Two Places at Once, Why Can’t You-by Tim Folger, Photograph by David Berry, Illustrations by Don Foley?

“In Penrose’s interpretation, gravity holds our reality together. In each potential state, the block generates a separate gravitational field…..,” rings with a certain importance when one talks about what happens with the very nature of the blackhole. What happens to that information.

Phil Warnell:However, if the second is taken as truth and all is remembering, then what can the force of gravity do to a memory that is not in any, yet of all?

I tried to implement a method by which one could “gauge the significance of the emotive experience” as it may pertain to that “primitive part” of our nature. That we could see “remembering” had been assigned a “quantum reductionist state” within the confines of that methodology?

See:Quantum State reduction as a real phenomenon by Roger Penrose (Oxford)2 Sep 1999

“The block,” while holding different gravitational defined consciousness states, had to settle to a strong emotive consolidating force from that experience. You repeatedly relive the experience, while current information saids that the memory can change. See Ledoux.

See:

Dennis William Sciama
Tipping LightCones and Escape Velocity of the Photon
What is Happening at the Singularity?
Science and the Mind: Sir Roger Penrose
Big Bang:One Man’s Change of Heart

Dialogos of Eide

Thanks Paul

One definitely needs some perspective around this and how such information is given. I refer here for consideration, about perspective, and how it can be exploited for further consideration on what is emitted, and what manifests in weak gravitational field measure, as neutrino effects(quantum gravity).

Microperspective and methods of examination, raise the issue fo cerenkov radiation and what it tells us about such interactive phases?

Here in refractive consideration, ICECUBE, paints a different picture of what began somewhere else in cosmological high energy collisions. “Neutrinos and strangelets” are part of the developing scenario with which the universe has consequences, if held to the initial conditons of our universe. You had to know where to look for these.

Plato:

“Nothing” in stated form was and always is “nothing” which would have not allowed any further discussion. “Zero” in our conversation is a much different kind of thinking. I understood that as well. “Zero” would have been the equivalent to “i” in the Dirac’s matrices?

Physics at this high energy scale describes the universe as it existed during the first moments of the Big Bang. These high energy scales are completely beyond the range which can be created in the particle accelerators we currently have (or will have in the foreseeable future.) Most of the physical theories that we use to understand the universe that we live in also break down at the Planck scale. However, string theory shows unique promise in being able to describe the physics of the Planck scale and the Big Bang.

I wanted to add this post, and to centralize some references that were found that helped form my perspective on “nothing.” What! I guess I’m done?:)

Seriously, this had to be confronted, and who better then from our layman perspectve, then the admission of a leaders in science, who can change theirs mind after some thinking?

Cosmological Constant SeeSaw in Quantum CosmologyMichael McGuigan

Lubos shares his perspective on linked section of titled paper above.

One interpretation of the coupling of Wheeler-DeWitt functions is that it originates from topology changing effects. Topology change seems to be inevitable in quantum gravity. To treat topology change properly is a very complicated calculation using today’s mathematical tools.

I wanted to add these links here for consideration, as well what link given by Paul for consideration in regards to Penrose, the figure of the man’s change of heart that ighlight’s this post. In Phase transitions the comments have been quite enlightening.

Before the Big Bang BBC News, with Stephen Sackur
Sir Roger Penrose has developed a new theory on what happened before the Big Bang.

These pages were created by Jack “Turtle” Wong, Spring 1999

See Also:

Dialogos of Eide

Nature’s patterns

So who is right? Well, there is much that is attractive in the Platonist point of view. It’s tempting to see our everyday world as a pale shadow of a more perfect, ordered, mathematically exact one. For one thing, mathematical patterns permeate all areas of science. Moreover, they have a universal feel to them, rather as though God thumbed His way through some kind of mathematical wallpaper catalogue when He was trying to work out how to decorate His Universe. Not only that: the deity’s pattern catalogue is remarkably versatile, with the same patterns being used in many different guises. For example, the ripples on the surface of sand dunes are pretty much identical to the wave patterns in liquid crystals. Raindrops and planets are both spherical. Rainbows and ripples on a pond are circular. Honeycomb patterns are used by bees to store honey (and to pigeonhole grubs for safekeeping), and they can also be found in the geographical distribution of territorial fish, the frozen magma of the Giant’s Causeway, and rock piles created by convection currents in shallow lakes. Spirals can be seen in water running out of a bath and in the Andromeda Galaxy. Frothy bubbles occur in a washing-up bowl and the arrangement of galaxies.

Well the following article came to my recognition by the “picture above”. When reference was made to what some might think, as what underlying reality exists as a mathematical pattern, could ever been associated to some divine will? Who or what would decide this, as representing the very idea of resonant possibilties of expression in symmetry breaking?

But crystals exhibit clear mathematical patterns of their own, such as a regular geometric form, and while nobody can deduce this in full logical rigour from the quantum mechanics of their atoms, there is a chain of reasoning that makes it plausible that the laws of quantum mechanics do indeed lead to the regularities of crystal structure.

How would one define a crystal, as having preconcieved viabilties in the quantum world? This would be very hard and uncertain thing to deal with. What rational would allow such previews of a reality before it can become something else?

See. Some might of recognized that picture above to the issue of Science and Mind by Sir Roger Penrose?

Dialogos of Eide

Above picture, belongs to this article and titled above, of frames that Sir Roger Penrose wrote in 1999.

Roger Penrose, a professor of mathematics at the University of Oxford in England, pursues an active interest in recreational math which he shared with his father. While most of his work pertains to relativity theory and quantum physics, he is fascinated with a field of geometry known as tessellation, the covering of a surface with tiles of prescribed shapes.

Being reminded of Roger Penrose I am actually going to contribute this blog entry to him, and sources that I had collected.

Twistor Theory

The motivation and one of the initial aims of twistor theory is to provide an adequate formalism for the union of quantum theory and general relativity. Twistors are essentially complex objects, like wavefunctions in quantum mechanics, as well as endowed with holomorphic and algebraic structure sufficient to encode space-time points. In this sense twistor space can be considered more primitive than the space-time itself and indeed provides a background against which space-time could be meaningfully quantised.

Twistor Program

http://twistor-theory.rdegraaf.nl/index.asp?sND_ID=436182

R. Penrose and M. A. H. MacCallum, Phys. Reports. 6C (1972) p. 241

pages:

242-243,244-245,246-247,248-249,250-251,252-253,254-255,256-257,258-259,260-261,262-263,264-265,266-265,268-269,270-271,272-273,274-275,276-277,278-279,280-281,282-283,284-285,286-287,288-289,290-291,292-293,294-295,296-297,298-299,300-301,302-303,304-305,306-307,308-309,310-311,312-313,314-315,316-317,318-320,320-322,322-324,324-326,326-328,328-330,330-332

or download the unix tar-ball to get all the pages at once. (WinZip is able to unzip this archive)

Sir Roger Penrose

Schrödinger’s Cat in Space

Fedja Hadrovich
In the past 30 years a lot of work has been done on developing twistor theory. Its creator, Roger Penrose, was first led to the concept of twistors in his investigation of the structure of spacetime and it was he who first saw the wide range of applications for this new mathematical construct. Yet 30 years later, twistors remain relatively unknown even in the mathematical physics community. The reason for this may be the air of mystery that seems to surround the subject even though it provides a very elegant formalism for both general relativity and quantum theory. These notes are based on a graduate lecture course given by R. Penrose in Mathematical Institute, Oxford, in 1997 and should give a brief introduction to the basic definitions. Let us begin with the building blocks: spinors.

R. Penrose, F. Hadrovich
Twistor Theory

The motivation and one of the initial aims of twistor theory is to provide an adequate formalism for the union of quantum theory and general relativity. Twistors are essentially complex objects, like wavefunctions in quantum mechanics, as well as endowed with holomorphic and algebraic structure sufficient to encode space-time points. In this sense twistor space can be considered more primitive than the space-time itself and indeed provides a background against which space-time could be meaningfully quantised.

Lecture I
Lecture II
Lecture III

Dialogos of Eide

]]>