- #1
sol2
- 910
- 2
Let's just say this phrase from Greene could actually act like a koan given for introspective enlightenment. Making it to mystical might be a mistake?
So maybe, if we translated this to mean, that a break through in mathematical formulation after deep introspective concentration, could actually set the stage for new thinking? Can happen, right?
Smolin does it all the time in his summations. Witten did it when he had complex probems, he'd sit by a stream. I have heard tell that mathematicians actually sit in a greater contemplation, hoping for this great break through.
Imagine ten years for breaking a mathematical formula, that has dogged current thinking, that you would receive a reward for 1000000. for having done so?
So taking this process if you might, and you apply it to the complex task of setting your sights on trying to understand these models that are trying to explain quantum gravity.
You see, even a group thinking has materialized(all scientific thought), to ask the question, on how we shall describe this. Look at the diverse model construction. Amazing isn't it.
So to me, this statement became somewhat paradoxal, in that how could such a statement make sense?
So before I reply and back up what I had been thinking about, are there any others who might give there interpretation of what Greene was saying?
So maybe, if we translated this to mean, that a break through in mathematical formulation after deep introspective concentration, could actually set the stage for new thinking? Can happen, right?
Smolin does it all the time in his summations. Witten did it when he had complex probems, he'd sit by a stream. I have heard tell that mathematicians actually sit in a greater contemplation, hoping for this great break through.
Imagine ten years for breaking a mathematical formula, that has dogged current thinking, that you would receive a reward for 1000000. for having done so?
So taking this process if you might, and you apply it to the complex task of setting your sights on trying to understand these models that are trying to explain quantum gravity.
You see, even a group thinking has materialized(all scientific thought), to ask the question, on how we shall describe this. Look at the diverse model construction. Amazing isn't it.
So to me, this statement became somewhat paradoxal, in that how could such a statement make sense?
So before I reply and back up what I had been thinking about, are there any others who might give there interpretation of what Greene was saying?
How can a speck of a universe be physically identical to the great expanse we view in the heavens above?
(Greene, The Elegant Universe, pages 248-249)
Last edited: