I would like to continually like to remind one of Plato’s cave. If the sun is behind us, how do you relate what is seen dimensionally, and describe it from first principles? The shadows are used in a way to draw our attention to our limitations of thinking.
So I moved this internally, and the sun behind, becomes the sun from a center realized inside. Circles within circles, topologically and constructively asking, which way are we seeing now?
I was thinking here that to get to the “truer source of reality” what underlies our basic intepretations of such “thought constructs,” would be to defined essentially in a geometric way, first. This is how first principle is established, as observation to a “geometric way” leads all concepts from this beginning?
So let’s say you are this fellow sleeping on the bus, and he is having deep suttle thoughts about life. He generalizes what he might see of “mass psychosis” in a geometical way, as well as, see science, necessary as the basis of this expression?
You also hads to know where the beginning of all expression arose from, so this defintion is very important in that respect?
Although theoretical, it establishment with the basis of science would be very important. As Feynman diagrams are.
Example here given with Dirac?
When one is doing mathematical work, there are essentially two different ways of thinking about the subject: the algebraic way, and the geometric way. With the algebraic way, one is all the time writing down equations and following rules of deduction, and interpreting these equations to get more equations. With the geometric way, one is thinking in terms of pictures; pictures which one imagines in space in some way, and one just tries to get a feeling for the relationships between the quantities occurring in those pictures. Now, a good mathematician has to be a master of both ways of those ways of thinking, but even so, he will have a preference for one or the other; I don’t think he can avoid it. In my own case, my own preference is especially for the geometrical way.
So the thought construct is very dependant on how we would look at reality and this might inject various geometric processes, yet, we are very aware of the timeline, and where this expression arose from. This is what first principle must do?
While we like to think of the “building blocks of matter” you may of liked to call them strings in the first microseconds, this still does not take you to the source of the expression of what is now geometrically enhanced? So one siads there is no geometry? And of course the Pizza Guy is amazed at how all this could exemplify itself in some way in which the false vacuum and the true vacuum can tunnel from one to another.
So definition of “brane thinking” here encases a lot of information conceptually, as we speak about the reality of such things, and how they arose? These are contained in the most simplfied picture forms. It is necessary to see into how the workings of all “thought constructs,” will manifest. Why pictures beomes links to a much more detail way of thinking geometrically.
I gave Dirac as a example.
I also link Albrect Durer for a example as well.