Lectons in the Abyss
We choose from a sea of things- and he question is if we can so choose and that this like any other system of axioms is independent and on what level it is so. But what of the abyss, the deeper babble of thought that does not mimic the connections we associate with the sounds of words? If we establish such atomic units devoid of higher meaning do we not hold in the highest esteem the idea of a bottomless pit? What then determines the grounding in the logic and the math of such arts of mind and matter save perhaps the existence of logic in itself quite beside what we may experience of it in thought and actuality?
Sometimes we need to get back to the roots of a more pure language and not make intellectual assumptions or false analogies or a bastardization rather than a hybrid of combined words and idioms. I recall a more pure English of its day and things that made more sense that did not dumb down the touch with the person as well as the lexicon of the meanings.
Do we only lose when we become objective and disembodies from our senses, our animal perception, our eyes grow weaker, our ears compensate growing larger, and despite what nerves vanish in our legs and arms they get the message- by today's reductionist view, mysteriously? Perhaps we gain a new depth and integration of our being over space and time, our animal soul evolves in general as well in the individual. There are setbacks, but then from some view even if we are not aware of the established soul there was no need for therapy of recovery- then again from this view what grounds such identity speaks of a solid identity- the question as always where is it in the design of this world? In that design we cannot be objective to make changes that do not perserve the person.
As in the Morse code for the numbers we have a cycle of things from one end to the other an exchange of the dits and dahs. Thus of so many we have the sum of two's in succession and in cycle. We have then a circle or mirror. So in a real sense what is the binary complement is also the rotation and these can be embedded in other lengths of two- or it can be a matter of indefinite translation. The deep question then, metaphysically, is what is the explanation where we combine the finite and the infinite (where they meet at initial conditions, origins) that the integral number of things is not the precise measure of that a little less or a little more. To limit ourselves for example to a twelve tone scale is not to say we do not grow beyond the tempered music but that we are making some statement about the world on some level. It is precisely here that we can choose from the lexicon of the congeries of particles to define and measure the extent and influence of the abyss- and then to map them to our bodies, minds, and music.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Sunday, June 28, 2009
Impressionism and Virtual Ray Tracing
Virtual Impressionism in the Surrealistic Ray Tracing
New Scientist (.com) has an article to called physics brings realism to virtual reality. There is a video clip where ten rays are focused on a pixel (it will be up to 100) with the suggestion that these rays, which can also mimic real sound, in real time can be developed into a matrix mathematical environment.
Obviously the field is growing. It seems clear to me that matrix methods will speed things up if the ideas of quasic space are taken into consideration. But more than that, as we are asking the fundamental questions of the commensurability of close packing in n dimensions (XCT and Kepler, see spcf references in the forum in his Blog)
Will this method result in what is considered Realism in physics as some seem to have a view of such things? Will it for example make a clearer picture of simulated molecular interactions? Or perhaps is there something a little more general to do here?
Maybe it is a psychological consideration. What do we need to learn very young that as we grow we stay flexible to new ideas and adaptable to new situations? Most problems seem to be the lack of controls or the fixing too soon of our knowledge or state of enquirey.
What, moreover, does the interconnection that develops across the genome that sets the mind in relation to memory and comprehension of that virtual state of our sentience over time? Clearly there may be a matrix that resolves our sense of time which should develop soundly, that is if such a higher state or culture of how we use our mind and knowing does not develop then in a sense the stress is too much to overcome and the mind can only handle the height it can achieve before fragmentation. Few people have this next state of thinking naturally in that they can develop in and control a richer psychological environment. Like food for the body earlier incarnations can persist longer at some level of development- such not fragmented minds quasically are relative sane like animals in their natural behavioral state or the development of character not pushed to excessive limits. Adults learning a trade or new language have ways to go beyond what is found naturally in the explosive and plastic growth of children- likewise there should be a psychology that maintains even higher intellectual achievements we should explore. I suggest then a certain artistic sensibility and a more human and personal treatment of what we consider realism as to how we apply the growing computer technology.
New Scientist (.com) has an article to called physics brings realism to virtual reality. There is a video clip where ten rays are focused on a pixel (it will be up to 100) with the suggestion that these rays, which can also mimic real sound, in real time can be developed into a matrix mathematical environment.
Obviously the field is growing. It seems clear to me that matrix methods will speed things up if the ideas of quasic space are taken into consideration. But more than that, as we are asking the fundamental questions of the commensurability of close packing in n dimensions (XCT and Kepler, see spcf references in the forum in his Blog)
Will this method result in what is considered Realism in physics as some seem to have a view of such things? Will it for example make a clearer picture of simulated molecular interactions? Or perhaps is there something a little more general to do here?
Maybe it is a psychological consideration. What do we need to learn very young that as we grow we stay flexible to new ideas and adaptable to new situations? Most problems seem to be the lack of controls or the fixing too soon of our knowledge or state of enquirey.
What, moreover, does the interconnection that develops across the genome that sets the mind in relation to memory and comprehension of that virtual state of our sentience over time? Clearly there may be a matrix that resolves our sense of time which should develop soundly, that is if such a higher state or culture of how we use our mind and knowing does not develop then in a sense the stress is too much to overcome and the mind can only handle the height it can achieve before fragmentation. Few people have this next state of thinking naturally in that they can develop in and control a richer psychological environment. Like food for the body earlier incarnations can persist longer at some level of development- such not fragmented minds quasically are relative sane like animals in their natural behavioral state or the development of character not pushed to excessive limits. Adults learning a trade or new language have ways to go beyond what is found naturally in the explosive and plastic growth of children- likewise there should be a psychology that maintains even higher intellectual achievements we should explore. I suggest then a certain artistic sensibility and a more human and personal treatment of what we consider realism as to how we apply the growing computer technology.
DOCE SAUDADE (Sweet Memories)
DOCE SAUDADE (Sweet Memories)
Some of us ride the light and some the ocean
All is the song against the night and
Its echo in my mind and memory, a little bird
An exchange of dreams that change each other
After all we are the most important things in
Our universe of dreams and dust, hopes and promises
We ride the light extraordinary yet from afar and
Cross all barriers, all lovers the same, and all born anew
Your exploding star sends into the espace noir spinning water
Our tame boring one lets your notes through to change me
I orbit this world an see flashes of light, and across its chords
The sorrows of the moon walk blood mystery going backwards
As if a meteor crashed into the earth and dug up time
I ride the caravan with you, walk the keyboard in your fingers
* * *
A Philosophic Point:
I had a dream this morning, thinking about time. A couple of levels of ideas recalled in depth as I awakened, some of it fading in the sense of it recalled. From perspectives on what may be in an others mind- as if there are two natural and substantial times possible. At least in the background of this experience we call reality here and now and over our lifetimes time we think subjective or time objective each have their reality according to which we personally and impersonally relate.
In a sense the dog I was watching did not seem to worry about philosophy and physics but just enjoyed the rhythm of life and his circumstances. We too abandon ourselves to the living, the animal awareness in us that rides upon the background of what is or seems real.
Now, Einstein as a young man dreamed of riding a photon of light and what he would see. But did he dream of the context of how the ground of such a view would color our understanding of ourselves and the world, our ways to deal with it, our beliefs?
Feynman dreamed he was an electron vibrating in a grid (and at first one consequence was that at this discrete ground there could be no internal symmetries- just as there is nothing outside the barrier of light, unreachable, as it seems to move forth at light speed into future unknowns. On the forum there is a discussion on the Ship of Fools- and of leaps of faith- but even the circuits assume for some unclear reason that we communicate with others- we stick our thumbs out on the lonesome highway in hopes a ride will come - at the moment doubt it so- or that love will come in the heat of the moment or a given somewhere in the interconnectedness of fate.
We tend then to regard one or the other of our situation in space and time as solidness or truth. Imagine then two people like two atoms or particles that exchange a photon of light, the mediator of force is the idea- even perhaps as a quantum principle that gravity has an analog. But does it mean anything to say we ride that photon and if so what of the context there at the geometric (thus the corpen or binary mirror vibration)?
In our exchanges of love do our hearts live only in moment in the light of such a photon and not see what is outside it and not integrated as we venture back and forth near the arrow of time? Or from our position, anywhere really, to we clearly see the thoughts and dreams of our lover. Are we attatched really to a place and time and over a wider time some memory defined only by the music that in reality we do not want to leave hearing the song of the familiar, homesick if far from our home and origins as if a new language and music where we adapt our new life to that of our lovers?
So, in a fundamental way this philosophic question does seem that of the unification of the quantum and relativisitic biases in the physics, and the natural one of our living human scale as that between these two great working yet exclusive principles of observation and experiement.
Time is part of a deeper yet personal memory of things before it is the illusion of time if all such are to be seen as illusion and not as fundamental- love itself can be everlasting and a permament illusion. It fits the matter as well as the mind. And our lives of just the living, the ritmo, as our own personal solidity, reality, centerdenss of our personality over time, the animal doing what it does, is as real as the abstract circumstances of the dark background of what makes us so much more than we appear.
Anyway, these blogs help in my attention and reading of the Latin languages- and the pictures worth a thousand words, and the connections and traditions of this sweet and time varying song on which we do found our styles and dress and hopes and dreams and other projects in our solitude and soverignty as humans. I post the poem here as I did on myspace.com/ottonian as at last it seems a worthwile and more poetic poem than what I have posted of late. One should go to youtube to hear the songs- and the one inspired by the goucha somewhere de sol (for the link on that blog is sometimes diverted to outside nonsense).
Of course there was more to the dream but with a little effort of thought and daydreaming it will come out to fill in the significance and technical applications as the theory and world grows clearer.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Sacred Geometry as Cosmic Theory
Sacred Geometry as Cosmic Theory
From time to time ideas of sacred geometry have come up on the philosophychatforum. I have had mixed feelilng about this as to how it may relate to physics and the philosophy of science. But for some issues I have gained a wider view. Plato after all discussed such things, The Metatron. The Platonic dice. Points or lines distinguishing space structures. Certainly there are thinking people with flakey theories, some of whom I have spoken to personally- or shall I say they have a certain frame of mind and cultural view. Oddly enough between various aspects of such theories there has been bitter competition for some point of principle.
How then are we to judge the utility of such ideas? How can geometry be all encompassing and yet empty if viewed a certain way to apply to what is real of our experience? From a general view the underlying physical or metaphysical principles suggests that such philosophies stand or fall together as philosophy of science or of physics. The certain analogies of geometry (as opposed to say linguistic analogy) as to how math applies and fits the cosmos is still subject to this grounding of doubt and a vague sense of being as certainty.
One obvious analogy is the surface of the earth as the sea in such an analog in three space (the surface of a higher sphere). We show how from our galaxy the others may seem to be recedeing from us as if on a baloon that expands. We sense that in the degrees of freedom we find in the sea these apply to objects in space or to the dimensions of particles. In a submarine or spaceship the background seems similiar.
So, in some ideas of the Sacredness of Gaea some have proposed on the surface of the earth things like Ley lines and presumably magnetic regions such as the Bermuda Triangle. This seems to me like the idea of a limited or multiple extension of the universe as if gravity or magnetic regions are like a slinky, rather less uniform at some scale pictured as if a slinky or some other chiral warped space manifold. Again we make distinctions naturally, contradictory or correspondingly co-existing without a more unified theory.
It does not help to conceive of structures and design as if things totally chaotic somehow average out to a commensurable theory. That reaches but does not exceed the math and logic involved (necessiarily). That is to say there is not at least a higher intelligible theory of design and not one of some assumptions as the grounding. To believe in such axioms of grounding is to limit scientific method as relativist falsification.
So, from the viewpoint of the mathematicians, engineers, and physicists of some in the sciencechatforum, the way they treat the frontiers of geometry and mathematical concern amounts to no more than a similarity or perhaps identical stance toward physics as sacred geometry. We find power regions or we find Ley lines when things are pushed to limits- one day perhaps these modern physics will seem as vague and flaky as some of the midevil post do to us today. Are we to limit things to say like Aristotle there is only circular motion and then analyze these as we do particle tracks to explain mass and momentum? The power of the calculus is only as good as our understanding of it as so applied and the world as long as we exist seems to be intellligible so mathematics may be what to us now seems incomplete thus experimental. The fault then is not that we do not have to know the higher ideas of the calculus to know at least continuum physics, but that we havfe not developed our calculus to a more philosophic level nor interpreted what we know correctly.
Perhaps in a sense- to show the wider questions of such reasoning about the infinite (where eventually all configurations occur) or the sense that there may be something truly and timelessly new beyond our contained history and experience (with God all things are possible) let us say we do stumble on something new in experiments like the particle colliders. What would it mean if we made say the Original Particle or something like it. While we may not destroy a city or the earth or even a solar system creating it or its context (if such "laws" are naturally uniform) what happens if it destroys the universe itself? Would it make a difference? In any case part of this needs to be sorted out as to the nature of arrows of time (much better explained than all the existing explanations). One such explanation involves the quasic ideas as to what is centered or not and over a wider interval of space and time, a causality on a fimer footing, which again is the question of poetic or narrative identity.
From time to time ideas of sacred geometry have come up on the philosophychatforum. I have had mixed feelilng about this as to how it may relate to physics and the philosophy of science. But for some issues I have gained a wider view. Plato after all discussed such things, The Metatron. The Platonic dice. Points or lines distinguishing space structures. Certainly there are thinking people with flakey theories, some of whom I have spoken to personally- or shall I say they have a certain frame of mind and cultural view. Oddly enough between various aspects of such theories there has been bitter competition for some point of principle.
How then are we to judge the utility of such ideas? How can geometry be all encompassing and yet empty if viewed a certain way to apply to what is real of our experience? From a general view the underlying physical or metaphysical principles suggests that such philosophies stand or fall together as philosophy of science or of physics. The certain analogies of geometry (as opposed to say linguistic analogy) as to how math applies and fits the cosmos is still subject to this grounding of doubt and a vague sense of being as certainty.
One obvious analogy is the surface of the earth as the sea in such an analog in three space (the surface of a higher sphere). We show how from our galaxy the others may seem to be recedeing from us as if on a baloon that expands. We sense that in the degrees of freedom we find in the sea these apply to objects in space or to the dimensions of particles. In a submarine or spaceship the background seems similiar.
So, in some ideas of the Sacredness of Gaea some have proposed on the surface of the earth things like Ley lines and presumably magnetic regions such as the Bermuda Triangle. This seems to me like the idea of a limited or multiple extension of the universe as if gravity or magnetic regions are like a slinky, rather less uniform at some scale pictured as if a slinky or some other chiral warped space manifold. Again we make distinctions naturally, contradictory or correspondingly co-existing without a more unified theory.
It does not help to conceive of structures and design as if things totally chaotic somehow average out to a commensurable theory. That reaches but does not exceed the math and logic involved (necessiarily). That is to say there is not at least a higher intelligible theory of design and not one of some assumptions as the grounding. To believe in such axioms of grounding is to limit scientific method as relativist falsification.
So, from the viewpoint of the mathematicians, engineers, and physicists of some in the sciencechatforum, the way they treat the frontiers of geometry and mathematical concern amounts to no more than a similarity or perhaps identical stance toward physics as sacred geometry. We find power regions or we find Ley lines when things are pushed to limits- one day perhaps these modern physics will seem as vague and flaky as some of the midevil post do to us today. Are we to limit things to say like Aristotle there is only circular motion and then analyze these as we do particle tracks to explain mass and momentum? The power of the calculus is only as good as our understanding of it as so applied and the world as long as we exist seems to be intellligible so mathematics may be what to us now seems incomplete thus experimental. The fault then is not that we do not have to know the higher ideas of the calculus to know at least continuum physics, but that we havfe not developed our calculus to a more philosophic level nor interpreted what we know correctly.
Perhaps in a sense- to show the wider questions of such reasoning about the infinite (where eventually all configurations occur) or the sense that there may be something truly and timelessly new beyond our contained history and experience (with God all things are possible) let us say we do stumble on something new in experiments like the particle colliders. What would it mean if we made say the Original Particle or something like it. While we may not destroy a city or the earth or even a solar system creating it or its context (if such "laws" are naturally uniform) what happens if it destroys the universe itself? Would it make a difference? In any case part of this needs to be sorted out as to the nature of arrows of time (much better explained than all the existing explanations). One such explanation involves the quasic ideas as to what is centered or not and over a wider interval of space and time, a causality on a fimer footing, which again is the question of poetic or narrative identity.
Espace Noir
Espace Noir
(Black Gap)
From a cultural viewpoint we have an analogy with the intelligibility of physics as to if it is based on metaphysical or physical principles in interpretation of the models we design and construct. It is also a problem of abstract and encoding and identity of sentient beings in the forum of debate, internally and with others. Thus we have a philosophy that concerns itself with messages and translations and the background, what its visibility is, to the event horizons of our experience. On the level of debate we may distinguish between the poetic and the narritive and which is a proper or false sense of the ground of the world or self. In this sense in the philosophychatforum of the science section we may say that Mac does describe a potentially good point as to his winning of the debate with Lincoln. Those who have tried to counter his points as with the points of others in this frame of mind will assume there is no higher generalization of the physics- separate the idea for example that there is a great divide between the idea of special relativity and the general relativities and arbritarilly choose what in the background of observation and experience is to be considered known and unknowable, relative and absolute. If they seem not to lose and arguement they push the subject away with claims that it makes no sense or is not handled in a business like manner. Of course there can be errors but the point out of them is set up that it cannot go both ways so the blind recourse of method is to isolate and bury those not in the shared world view of supposed peers. coberst on the forum formally raises this issue and in the doing so- as if it does not matter that such a discussion is placed under the questionable coloration of metaphysics that they prove the wisdom of the young turks by the allowing of free speech and exchange of ideas. Are they aware of the underlying poetry of their narrative responses or are they inherently mean spirited- and as coberst asks is this a social effect?
What this amounts to then, is that in the internet and blogosphere we have this interace of personal and anonymous questioning of our identity and the question of its fundamental nature as linked or not, locally or in some abstract extension. Moreover, in Lincoln's response as to the equation of energy and citing of Einstein's equation, there is no deep understanding as energy as it relates to these background, or phaneron questions of space. My group modeling for example, a TOE that exists in the dark side as if unseen dark matter (that is Lincoln's term for the phillosphy part of the forum) is not treated with equations of energy itself which of course may be limited to the experience and explanation of the problems of the expanding universe or any such expansions. (indeed this problem will be encountered also by some cosmologies discussed on the forum by Marshall of those who would try to build physics from the bottom up, geometrically.) A major new discovery of spin magnetics between atoms could have been predicted as a real experiment by my view of the structure of atoms and such explanations. In a sense on the atomic scale these are links between a multi universe I had styled as Lincolms.
Despite the reduction of emotional content we encounter in the internet the emotions are there implicit in the design metaphysics of language and our biological design. It follows that the exclusion of individuals unjustified as well the exclusion of whole races and cultures of the third world implies that these people, demeaned or deamonized, after all have real human personalities which they cannot admit exist.
While it may be wise not to follow some posters with opinnions down the rabbit hole I find it most ironic that in matters of how cosmology relates to the biology as fundamental that the administration are entertaining the idea and debating it when for all this time the issue I raised and no one questioned or took seriously, scandalously, what is still there in the philosophy section long ago- is it that no theory matters if it does not come from their special (if fictional) sense of their in group? Can they only rate a scientific theory if it originates only from their thinking and traditions. Jew science is irrelavant says Hitler.
We of course are not brash enough to say that ideas of natural law are guarenteed by the mind of God, as Berkely argued and that part of his thinking most elect to disreguard as unmodern. This is really not the case from the naturalistic intelligent design sense of things- at least not a proven one short of death and further experience. A great unified black gap then for the universe in general. In questions of consciousness it is more like we are the Mind of God naturally, or a part of it - if such distinctions of scale mean anything. But for the design of the brain and its interpretation this idea is our relation to a phaneron a step beyond the reduction into concept of mind or matter.
We might cheer up the neurologists from the Israeli study that between the synaspses or the long term memory the production of protiens are required. But does this say that our memories are a matter of substances? Will any such structures give us memories or can the design itself be a memory? Will the recollection destroy the matter and configuration of the memory? Clearly we should expect a lower correspondence in the design between the cognitive and material intelligible universe as the state of things and the mind. By the way in the question of is there nothing? I actually saw one of the new debaters, a scientist, saying that nothingness is a thing. Nothingness is a void or abstraction in which our memories as mind is stored and is not a thing in that sort of reductionist stance.
If we are to entertain the idea of dark energy/matter then clearly the abstract void is what our ideas are grounded within and so guarenteed as being (not something nor empty). The biochemistry of the void is more than the ideas of say string physics- it is also the mechanisms and aspirations of what we will one day come to understand as dark fluid. But perhaps such scientific studies are enough to comfort the materialists and confirm they have not personality anyway and so justify it. Perhaps in the enguaging them even at this blog distance I in a back handed way help to stimulate their existence as humans. Perhaps if I were without soul it would be a small matter to prevent their existence in retrospect but then we come back to having to deal with our isolation and lonliness instead of creativiness, they work their own black heart gaps.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
The Possible Future of Particle Detection
I would like to add that the strong part of Lincoln's LHC book does involve the description of the actual design of the collier and its detectors. As always sensitive to the budget to show where the scientists have to streamline and make compromises. I assume as an international project that the dissemination of the information transcends the nationalist concerns of the participants. Yet in a way this project, from my view, would not be a good one to follow based on the current designs and ideas of what is fundamental physics. It would be a dead end and crude plagerism of second rate mimic of the Poetry that will be left behind the expanding wisdom and technology.
On the other hand if the design of the detectors were not so bound up into our quaint ideas of three space a lot could be done to actually see what might not be possible to see now. Perhaps there is a higher analog to the pincing effect of toroidal fields as in hot fusion which in looking at the internal symmetries the effect occurs as something we think we can write off to pure uncertainty and a finer instrument and resolution.
I agree with Lincoln, that we will not find something so radically new it could consume the planet. But I disagree for different and what I feel much sounder physical principles. This does relate to the study at hand of our interpretation of these so called fundamental equations as a way to measure and hopefully find some "new" phenomenon that justifies the project.
So, I conceive a new type of detector- one which ironically can be precise enough to take advantage of the types of shower events of cosmic or any other type of radiation and yet make us able to interpret the hidden data which for now we only see implicitly. Oddly enough it may be something like the quasic lensing but over a wider range of space and such group properties of the various manifolds of the fields. It is still an open question as to what extent we can turn such telescopes and microscopes to some of the cosmic sources. In a quasic sense too what we design of an experiment loads the dice of what we find in the experiment, if what we find is real.
It is quite a feeling to see our most advanced project looking like an old sci fi movie with crude special effects as if, despite our natural experience with lightning, it dawns on us we can bring things to life by the aid of steam engines and special effects that in retrospect we grossly underestimated the progress of the technology.
Now, is there not an anology somewhere, as if a generational or fractal like manifold of replacing the wires with silicon (what sort of tinkering is this with the spaggetti monster?) which from the abstract beginning shows the echo of carbon structures? Is it not the same unified mathematics and moreover a view of space that can go a few levels higher? Is it a uniform law over all space that the embryo becomes layers of tissue- or is this just some random event in nature? The lack of deep consideration of the metaphysics involved is a matter of progress, time and money. I see no reason to defend such primitive methods or philosophy of science for the results are clearly limited to our state of the vision.
On the other hand if the design of the detectors were not so bound up into our quaint ideas of three space a lot could be done to actually see what might not be possible to see now. Perhaps there is a higher analog to the pincing effect of toroidal fields as in hot fusion which in looking at the internal symmetries the effect occurs as something we think we can write off to pure uncertainty and a finer instrument and resolution.
I agree with Lincoln, that we will not find something so radically new it could consume the planet. But I disagree for different and what I feel much sounder physical principles. This does relate to the study at hand of our interpretation of these so called fundamental equations as a way to measure and hopefully find some "new" phenomenon that justifies the project.
So, I conceive a new type of detector- one which ironically can be precise enough to take advantage of the types of shower events of cosmic or any other type of radiation and yet make us able to interpret the hidden data which for now we only see implicitly. Oddly enough it may be something like the quasic lensing but over a wider range of space and such group properties of the various manifolds of the fields. It is still an open question as to what extent we can turn such telescopes and microscopes to some of the cosmic sources. In a quasic sense too what we design of an experiment loads the dice of what we find in the experiment, if what we find is real.
It is quite a feeling to see our most advanced project looking like an old sci fi movie with crude special effects as if, despite our natural experience with lightning, it dawns on us we can bring things to life by the aid of steam engines and special effects that in retrospect we grossly underestimated the progress of the technology.
Now, is there not an anology somewhere, as if a generational or fractal like manifold of replacing the wires with silicon (what sort of tinkering is this with the spaggetti monster?) which from the abstract beginning shows the echo of carbon structures? Is it not the same unified mathematics and moreover a view of space that can go a few levels higher? Is it a uniform law over all space that the embryo becomes layers of tissue- or is this just some random event in nature? The lack of deep consideration of the metaphysics involved is a matter of progress, time and money. I see no reason to defend such primitive methods or philosophy of science for the results are clearly limited to our state of the vision.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
