Quote:
Originally Posted by JamesANicholson  One point I am almost reluctant to mention, because I am an artist, also. It is very easy to be seduced by such lovely artistic renderings that might be given weight that they don't rightly deserve as factual depictions of the way things are actually operating. They are sort of like metaphors that take two dissimilar things and equate them based on the flimsiest tiny obscure stretched little similarity which usually isn't even that similar, and people use these in their "proofs" of their theories as if they were actually somehow truly supportive or representative of real constructs and actions. This sort of imagery can be very misleading and ultimately more confusing than helpful, Although they were lovely as art, they are not based on evidence and don't illuminate the workings of the various forces in a way that makes any sense. Not that graphics can't illuminate true constructs, because I believe that they can and are even necessary, but must be based on something more than proximity of position. Forgive me, if this comes across as a harsh criticism of the three pyramid drawings--this is a big pet peeve of mine with metaphor that is passed off as scientific "proof" in general. |
Harsh criticism has its place, Aaron, so don't worry too much about delivering it. Your respect is met with my respect. However, when delivering criticism it must be accompanied by good reasoning, otherwise it is only harsh and has no constructive meaning.
I have three points to undermine your comment, the first one being the mathematical information that supports the lack of singularity (based on the ever-occurrence of the number zero in any numeral system, except for the concept containing only one number (that of containing 1, and only 1; not even 0). You can find this information at
http://pentapublishing.com/Math.html
The second argument I have is that any concept delivered is one-removed from reality, including any scientific concept. I will ask you to look at Austin's artful deliveries again, and focus just on the pyramid. It contains three pairs of opposition: top-down (singular vs. diversity), Strong-Weak nuclear forces (as forces that in no way belong to the other force, similar to yes and no being each others opposite), and lastly electric force-magnetic force (that show many similarities of each other, but not being one and the same). I personally would have left out the words: 'evolution,' 'unknowable,' 'materialization,' 'matter,' and 'motion,' yet its Austin's freedom to insert them and they should not prevent you from getting the general set-up of how the forces relate to each other in abstract positions.
Ultimately, the toe needs to be understood not just as having properties, but as a structure, too, and all that we do know needs to fit inside that structure. The pyramid is that structure. It is a concept, and concepts don't walk around in our streets, they exists in our heads; they take time to be understood. Austin's artist rendering is only a tool to view the positions (because that's what the pyramid ultimately delivers) of the forces and how they relate to each other. Gravity exists within the pyramid, is part of the pyramid, but is not an external force in the pyramid.
The last point I have to undermine your criticism is that your delivery to undermine the pyramidal concept as only art is itself also only words; words refer to something, they are not the actual something. So, if your words are true then you can also not use your words yourself, since each word is itself an image of reality, and not the real thing. But also no worries here; I am not going to have you eat your words, because I understand exactly what you want to convey. But please research the provided link plus the pyramidal display, so you can understand the scientific ramifications of the display. If you still feel the same about the display of information then substantiate your reasoning to the extent it contains a critique that can be validated.