Quote:
|
Originally Posted by PassatAmnesiac I couldn't agree more. I shouldn't have sounded so depressing. As Socrates said "the unexamined life is not worth living".
Vortex, or Calabi-Yau shape could be. My ideas are not so original. I have much to learn before I can come up with something off the beaten path. I think Mike 5 has some new interesting ideas. He kind of blows the lid off the M-Brane theory. But then again I wouldn't know that because I don't really understand either in depth, only in broad strokes. Gotta go up the ladder in math, physics, and cosmology still. |
You will see in many threads that most of the members that post regularly are ussually against m-theory. I'm not particularly against it, but not in favor. I don't think it's near to nature at all. It's explenation are very inventive: they base on things that base on things that base on things which are invented and not proven at all. So, inventions of inventions of inventions is what m-theory is, we could thus say that it is m for magic. No philosciensophia around.
Mike's idea is interesting but hard to understand. You see, we grow with the part of our brain that is logical, being mathematicisez. This is, being based on the logic of mathematics over any other kind of logic (for more of my thoughts on logic and maths, see my thread "Logic and maths" in philosophy of mathematics forum). So, as mike has changed the basic principles, even things more basic than the axioms, he's changed the logic upon which the axioms are done, so it's completely in contrast to what we ahve learn. The fac tthat they contrast in such a way tells us that they are talking about different thing. And this is my theory: there infinite number of possible mathematics, just by changing the logic. Mike's math replaces quantity with quality, static with motion, cartesian with circular (maybe we can say "kesian" derived from mi-ke, just like cartesin is derived from des-cartes?)... Both his invention/discorvement/development and math can help us understand the cosmic simphony, but in different manners. TO discuss mike's theory, continue these postings (I woudl liek to carry on) in any of hese threads.
By the way, great quote socrate's one, I had heard it once, but can't remember where....oh yes, in my own mind. But he was born first.