String Theory, Universal Mind, and the Paranormal *

[sol2]

Brian D. Josephson
Department of Physics, University of Cambridge

The point in regard to mathematical thinking, which motivates our model,
is the following. Consider first of all what the brain does in visual
perception. Here the primary information from the visual receptors goes
through various levels of processing until it ends up as a high-level
representation of the content of the visual field. It is not
unreasonable to identify mathematics as a similar process, except that
higher levels of abstraction are involved in this case. With the visual
case, the mechanics are straightforward: the visual field typically
contains for example edges, for which abstraction a dedicated neural
system has evolved, related to our ability to perceive edges. It is
hard to see why we should have such ready access to higher mathematical
abstractions having little connection with experience (Penrose 1994).
One resolution of the problem would be for mathematical concepts to be
in some way ‘in the physics’, rather than being emergent properties of
brains. In case it is felt that such a drastic solution is not
necessary to explain our ready access to mathematical ideas, and that
neural networks can provide an adequate explanation, a stronger argument
for the existence of some kind of Platonic realm can be made on the
basis of the aesthetic aspect of music (Josephson and Carpenter 1996).

http://www.sophists.org/downloads/physics_esp.txt

If you accept such paradigmal features in these new models what is the outcome?

Since I am a fringe string theorist you can label me crackpot and I could get away with it:) The aspects of imaging that I find developes is most interesting as I look at the mathematical discriptors, as way in which to describe what the visonistic mathematics is doing.

That I refer George Lakoff and 0f the principals of origination in mathematics, it becomes a interesting feature, that such probabilistic events could arise out of nowhere and then follows some geometrical consistancy model that is hoped for. How do you do that in quantum gravity?

So for me the ideas of the marble drop become a significant factor in trying to make sense of pascal's triangle as such feature and pathway of expression.
But still this does not answer the call of origination, and roads to develope new math processes that would extend ths vision beyond the limitations that currently strangles further theoretical developement?

So having understood this how does paradigmal shifts, allow one to see differently and extends vision, if you do not assume that principals of these new theories?

1. You have to assume probabilistic features exist? What lies beneath.
2. That there is a point of origination?
3. That this information can be expressed through this point?
4. That when it does, it assumes the characteristic of all human constructs, to date, and that lacking such a discritption, would remain unexplainable?

So can we say in strig theory such a point can become realized by the energy determination? That lacking euclidean direction here of point line plane that we move this "expression" to another realm for consideration:)

Point circle cylinder, and then as energy expressed, twist and turn?

Sounds like the macarana to me:) or doing the Bose NOva.

 

[sol2]

http://www.sukidog.com/jpierre/strings/unify.gif

If such assumption is going to set the standard, then can we interpret this as a possible understandng that such probabilistic events could occur and can be describe in that big ?

If you consider the metric points to supermetric points, are you also empowering the plasmatic features of dynamical movement, as well as features of supergravity?

If you scale such a point then, with such a question mark, how could we ever assign weak field measures to dimensional significance?

Any corrections in thinking would be appreciated, as I do not want to go forward and multiply wrong perceptions.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Sol, I want to comment on your Brian Jospehson quote about the relation of brain structures evovlsed for sensing the environment to the ability to reason with abtract mathematics.

A recent development is that Noam Chomsky, who is famous for positing a "deep structure" in the brain that does "generative grammar" and hence gives us our natural ability to learn a language as toddlers, has now suggested that the complexity of generative grammar can be replaced with just one capability: recursion (qg). And I believe higher mathematics can be constructed from basic shape and arithmetic skills by recursions. So this is a possible anwer to Joephson's conundrum.

 

[sol2]

A recent development is that Noam Chomsky, who is famous for positing a "deep structure" in the brain that does "generative grammar" and hence gives us our natural ability to learn a language as toddlers, has now suggested that the complexity of generative grammar can be replaced with just one capability: recursion (qg). And I believe higher mathematics can be constructed from basic shape and arithmetic skills by recursions. So this is a possible anwer to Joephson's conundrum.

I'll definitely be looking at this. Thanks

 

[sol2]

The Dance of the Honey Bee

A bee's dance can't tell us much about the Bose Nova though?


How Does the Brain Generate Computation, by Marc D. Hauser


One of the interesting things about evolution that's been telling us more and more is that even though evolution has no direction, one of the things you can see, for example, within the primates is that a part of the brain that actually stores the information for a representation, the frontal lobes of our brain, has undergone quite a massive change over time. So you have systems like the apes who probably don't have the neural structures that would allow them to do the kind of computations you need to do language-processing. In our own work we've begun to look at the kinds of computations that animals are capable of, as well as the kind of computations that human infants are capable of, to try to see where the constraints lie.

http://www.kurzweilai.net/meme/frame.html?main=/articles/art0369.html?m%3D3

There is lots to conisder here, but imagine that a lot of disconnected information can be put before our enquiring minds, and out of this, a vision materializes.

Now, how much of that information has gone into developing that vision? Part of it, or all of it? The flash of insight, given this circumstance would seem hidden behind. So by moving past the fragmented information sources, or that vast array of mathematics, there is something surreal about abtraction:) A keen eye for the anomalies?

Remember Arthur Miller?

Miller has since moved away from conventional history of science, having become interested in visual imagery through reading the German-language papers of Einstein, Heisenberg and Schrödinger - "people who were concerned with visualization and visualizability". Philosophy was an integral part of the German school system in the early 1900s, Miller explains, and German school pupils were thoroughly trained in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant.

Well given the circumstance of defining a consistent geometrical determinations has lied at the basis of Klien's ordering of geometries the question of all this movement through it phases, and really what comes out in the end. What vision materializes?

So we are indeed looking for simplicity as Marcus refers, as well as making this whole gamut of mathematical references synopsized to this holographical image from a vast coordinates frames of reference. But the vision is more maleable, having moved on and grokking it, to a "foundational series" for new possibilties.

Cubist Art and the Monte Carlo effect? Even in the case of Salvador Dali, his tresserack, of Christ Hanging on the cross is a attempt to define a higher state of being? His character is a different question in light of what goodness might mean[?], but looking past this, can we say, he had genuine thoughts about these higher dimensions?

There was this information out there in regards to Abbot?