.

Dear David & One Under God,

.

“Don’t sell yourself short, Banjo. I am sure you could have many happy hours with mathematics.”
.

Thank you for your kind words of encouragement, David, and also for your reading suggestions which I am eager to discover.

As a matter of fact, I bought a book on the internet about a year ago that was supposed to teach me something about mathematics but it was well beyond my starting level. It was written in hieroglyphical code which, despite all my efforts, I was unable to decipher. Then I noticed in the introduction that the minimum requirement for beginners was “college level” which, as you know, is well above my modest bush primary school education.

I’ve looked for it but can’t find the book anywhere. I guess I must have tossed it in the rubbish bin.

The vivid description of that amazing “beast”, the ameba (amoeba), by One Under God, takes my mind back to the question of the beauty of mathematics in the context of our discussion on mathematics in nature.

It reminds me of all those imperfections of nature (the poorly designed circular forms of the sun and the moon, birds which don’t fly in straight lines, the approximate triangles and cones of mountain peaks, the irregular surfaces of the plains, the rugged cylindrical forms of tree trunks, the seas and oceans which don’t make waves, etc.).

As you point out, the mathematical models do not have all those imperfections of nature and only manage to reproduce them by application of the slice theorem in the sole domain of X-ray computed tomography.

Thanks to you and George, I am now beginning to realise the enormous consequences of what you have both been saying all along, that mathematics is quite incapable of producing a precise model of reality.

.

(Continued) ...

.

.

(Continued) ...

.

So it seems there are no such things as circles, straight lines, triangles, cones, flat surfaces, cylinders and waves ... in nature, independently of mankind. They are simply the fruit of the imagination of mankind. He has conceived them, designed them and produced them. Otherwise, they would not exist.

And so it is that we now have nearly perfectly flat plate-glass, uniformly round stainless steel balls and wheels, almost perfectly straight rods, finely calibrated triangles, cones and cylinders, as well as standardised tomatoes, apples, oranges, peaches, pears, plums, apricots, bananas, kiwis, pigs, chickens, eggs, flowers, etc.

In other words, so it is that we now have the world according to man, that almost perfect world, cohabitating with, and gradually replacing, that terribly imperfect world, the natural world.

And one may ask: mirror, mirror, on the wall, which is the more beautiful of all - nature or mankind’s mathematical models.

I guess we all have the right to have our own opinion on the subject – not that it makes any difference.

.

Banjo wrote: “And one may ask: mirror, mirror, on the wall, which is the more beautiful of all - nature or mankind’s mathematical models.”

Dear Banjo,

Why make a hierarchy at all? Why not just enjoy the beauty of both. Do we ask: What is more beautiful, daffodils or Wordsworth’s poem about daffodils?

George wrote: “This I wanted to ask your opinion about many times: Abelian group is a mathematical concept, quark is a physical concept, i.e. it refers to something that “exists” in the outside world. What about concepts like the Lagrangian (or Hamiltonian): is it more like Abelian groups (manifolds, vector fields, etc) or like quarks (electrons, energy, electromagnetic fields etc)?”

Dear George,

I attack such questions by reducing them to simpler forms. The differential equation resulting from Newton’s Second Law is a mathematical concept. Motion is a physical concept. The answer seems to be that those concepts you question seem more like mathematical concepts to me.

Dear OUG,

Thank you for looking up that material.

I find a great beauty in simplicity. What is the essence? Can we reduce the complex to a simple form? That’s what we do when we see the complexities of nature as pure geometric figures. Do the simple forms do an adequate job of describing the territory considered? That depends on the purpose of our reductionism.

There is a beauty in order. There is a beauty in disorder. We can go from Mondrian to Pollock. Where is there more beauty? Do we have to ask where is there more beauty?

Robert Herrick. 1591–1674

Delight in Disorder

A SWEET disorder in the dress

Kindles in clothes a wantonness:
A lawn about the shoulders thrown
Into a fine distraction:
An erring lace, which here and there
Enthrals the crimson stomacher:
A cuff neglectful, and thereby
Ribbands to flow confusedly:
A winning wave, deserving note,
In the tempestuous petticoat:
A careless shoe-string, in whose tie
I see a wild civility:
Do more bewitch me than when art
Is too precise in every part.

beauty..isnt..*IN..the eye..
BUT is..in the mind..*and the heart

[there is a reasoning..
behind the 4 chambers..in*..our heart affections
each giving their feedback..via the quality..of the hormone laden soup..it pumps in/out][many mathematical options..by facter of 4]

i heard previously..the heart has more
Elect-trick..activity/affect/feedback..than the brain

but lets..see in our minds..eye
..the inner workings of the*..eye...seeing.

<<..The optics of the eye.create an image..of the visual world on the retina,..which serves much the same function..as the film in a camera.

Light..striking the retina
initiates a cascade..of chemical and electrical *events..that ultimately trigger nerve impulses.

These impulses..are sent to various visual centres of the brain..through the fibres of the optic nerve...

from there they produce physical transfer chemicals
that then switch on/continues..other receptors..nerves..neurons..

on..into the brain..that the mind eventually 'sees/hears/smells feels..via body feedback loops..to our organs..including the brain..\

these release yet other adaptive/modifiers..some affecting the mind..others fight or flight..fear angst..nervousness and even..esp/etc..[or some such/like]

We found impaired time-based,.but undiminished event-based, prospective memory..among children with ASD.

Time-based and event-based prospective memory in autism spectrum disorder: the roles of executive function and theory of mind, and time-estimation.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23179340

In the ASD group,..time-based prospective memory performance was associated significantly with diminished theory of mind,..but not with diminished cognitive flexibility...

There was no evidence..that time-estimation ability..contributed to time-based prospective memory impairment in ASD.>>[memories]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_dysfunction

In psychology and neuroscience,..executive dysfunction,
or executive function deficit..is a disruption..to the efficacy of the executive functions,..
which is a group*..of cognitive processes*..that regulate,..control,..and manage other*..cognitive processes>>

<<Executive dysfunction..is not the same as dysexecutive syndrome,
a term coined by Alan Baddeley to describe a common pattern of dysfunction..*in executive functions,..such as deficiencies in planning,..abstract thinking,..flexibility..and behavioural control.

[This group of symptoms,..usually resulting from brain damage,
thus..tend to occur together.[4]

However,..the existence..of this/syndrome..is controversial.[5]>>

god bless freewill

There are...interacting environmental/factors..that also/have an influence..loves/hates et'al

some more from..gone west
http://new-birth.net/booklet/Gone_West.pdf
relative..to seeing

“Do you have..light..and darkness here?”

H.J.L...“Not as you understand..the words,
for this is not*..a material world,..therefore
material light..has no place here...But there is a..kind of spiritual darkness...dependent on our beliefs

In Hell..it is utter
darkness,..for there is no belief.

As to what is here,..look, open your eyes—see.“

(Suddenly I perceived
we were in a kind of twilight..or soft evening light.)

“Here we do not perceive..so clearly..as those who do believe, therefore.we are in this
twilight.

But as we progress..the light[belief]..[surity]..becomes stronger.
The light,..if so you can call it,..is
within ourselves...

We must part now.”
(He began to fade..and grow indistinct,..then I was
alone.)>>..

that inner light..is what allows..our minds eye'.its seeing

..<<>.Is this enough..evi-dence?
My friends..would probably never believe..that I only half
believed,.and I hardly realized..that this was the case..myself.

But..it was due..to over-much
study of..heology...I lost,..or nearly
lost,..much of the substance..*for the shadow.>>

We..make it true..by our interpretations
of..what it is..we are EXPECTING..seeing>>

<<..God..is the light..in which I see.
.You cannot see..in darkness>>

<<..As you see him,..you will see yourself
...for in him..you will find yourself..or lose yourself.>>

<<..I have given everything I see...all the meaning
that it has for me.

... I am not alone..in experiencing
the effects..of my seeing...>>

remembering
that what we see..in another
..we are always seeing..in ourselves.>>

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=acim+seeing

Love or confusion
http://crackingtheenigma.blogspot.com.au/2011/11/case-of-colour-emotion-synaesthesia.html

In a second experiment,..Ramachandran et al
tested TK and 15 control subjects..on a Stroop interference test.

Participants were given words
printed in colour and..*had to say the colour of each word,..*ignoring what the word itself said.

In the classic version of the test,
the words are all themselves correct in colour/name.

In the congruent condition,
the word matches the colour..

ONLY..in the medium..UPON which.it's printed
:..not by true color word..[see link]

RED BLUE/YELLOW GREEN

In the..incongruent condition,
the word..and its colour..are mismatched

RED BLUE YELLOW GREEN

People are generally
faster.,.to name the ink colours
when the word matches the colour...Even though they're supposed to be ignoring what the word says,..they can't help..but read it,..and this affects..their response*..to the actual colour.

George wrote: "It depends on what you call “Creationism”: There is no way to falsify a belief that evolution is guided by a Creator in a way indiscernible by humans. "Intelligent designers" claim they can discern it."

Dear George,

Their Creationism consists of a belief that the creation process described in Genesis is literally true,

It obviously cannot be literally true since there are two accounts, and they are contradictory.

GEN 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

GEN 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

In one account God created man and woman together. In the other account woman came from man.

The second account apparently comes from Sumerian legend. From “History Begins at Sumer” p. 146:

“The Sumerian word for rib is ti (pronounced tee). The goddess created for the healing of Enki’s rib is called Nin-ti, “the lady of the rib.” But the Sumerian word ti also means “to make live,” The name Nin-ti may also mean “the lady who makes live,” as well as “the lady of the rib.” In Sumerian literature, therefore “the lady of the rib” came to be identified with “the lady who makes live” through what might be termed a play on words. It is this, one of the most ancient of literary puns, which was carried over and perpetuated in the Bible paradise story, although here, of course, it loses its validity, since the Hebrew word for “rib” and that for “who makes live” have nothing in common.