The Cosmic Landscape

I noticed a few blogs mentioning the landscape.

Asymptotia(Clifford Johnson), The Reference Frame(Lubos Motl), and Not Even Wrong (Peter Woit’s) blog.

The Cosmic Landscape:String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design by Leonard Susskind

After reading Susskind’s book in regards to the landscape issue, I was intrigued by the First Three Microseconds previous as it helped iilucidate some of this information for me. As well as giving me some indications from the blogs mentioned and the topic therein.

What struck me a quite profound in reading Susskind’s book, was that what was to all appearances a troubling issue with “eyesight,” in regards to Peter Woits idea of intelligent design attributed to the landscape of string theory, that Susskind, was actually answering him by pronoucing the title of this book of his. It’s obvious, he has been watching the discussions.

Now what was profound, was that the idea of the landscape was a mathematical construct. If you were so concerned about the idea of the landscape, then why would anyone with “math skills” reject the landscape? If the day is announcing itself in blog voices and now say hmmm…. with interest, I see that it is becoming more acceptable?

If you did not see the “hills and valleys” for what they were, then why would you reject what was leading in terms of the finiteness of Mandelstam, and then say, there was no more future in regards to where math had left off?

This is Lee Smolin’s downfall I think when discussing the issue of Polchinski’s concepts, reitereated with regards to Lee’s book, and the “ventures of mathematics” as it has been spelted out and had pointed towards the landscape issues.

This is where Peter Woit made his mistake as well.

I accept that a lot of people don’t like it. But that’s not the point in terms of mathematical development, as it had been argued by Polchinski, against his reading and comments in regards to Lee Smolin’s book.

See:The First Three Microseconds

This infomration has lead me to insights about the landscape that had missed most people, even those who are well educated. My point above is in regards to Mandelstam, and the arguments against Lee by Jacques distiller, was important from this aspect.

Reject the notion of the topological figures in relation to the landscape issue, and what is left? Yes, Lee’s and Peter Woits ideas about the landscape, which is not finished. Which is leading with concepts, by mathematical deduction.

Can’t always answer in post responses, but please let me know that you are visiting? 🙂

My son and I are starting our foundation. I write when I can, but read in the hours without our electricity and by battery alone.

This entry was posted in deduction, Genus Figures, Landscape, Laughlin, Mandelstam, planck, Smolin, Susskind and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s