Are you an "in" or an "out of the box" kind of person?

See: Three Ring Circus: Dark EnergyUnfortunately this image is not very clear in terms of the writing inside the black boxes but if you are careful enough they can be quite illuminating, as we see this at work in our universe under the auspice of a “birth and death” in the existence of the universe now, that it indeed, “never dies.” Veneziano was introduced to help you see this new introduction to thinking outside the box.

I would not like to categorize any scientist but unfortunately as I was reading it became apparent to me that there are two kinds of scientists.

Plato on Jul 25th, 2006 at 10:27 am

Clifford:

“Seriously his talk is all about the physics of certain type of spacetime singularites-such as the one that live’s in our universe’s past-and whether life can make sense of the idea of space and time coming into being after such a singularity, while not existing prior to that.

You know all roads lead too, out of the box thinking? Reductionist views? Why do them?

So having shown the connection to “what” exists prior, seems like a “controversial point made” and supports the in the box people(Sean Mark Risa, JoAnne)? 🙂 No flights of fantasy, or “ammunition” for distorting reality?

Unless, you are willing to discuss apriore? May Gabriele Veneziano burn in H***?:) or come through “smelling” like roses?”

Of course I should more specific and this is a trait that ruins by assumption on my part, and seems cryptic, which is not my intention.

I am going to show the characteristics as I came to know them from another’s perspective, yet, I will go back to 2005 and help to explain myself, and Sean’s current article in Scientific Magazine, and what the Shape of space is doing while Sean gives his explanations on the box and his attempts to work outside of it.

Plato on Jul 25th, 2006 at 9:20 pm

Are you a SuperCosmologist? 🙂

You know what happens when you have to explain yourself?

Well, it could be interpreted that maybe I didn’t understand it at all? Well that’s partially true, and I do know the trouble philosophers have?

Oh your not “obtuse” at all either Clifford.

SuperCosmologists Think Out of the Box Clifford at 1:13 a.m. August 3 2005

Clifford:

Physicist are attracted by the idea of showing that the types of 3+1 dimensional models and equations which regular cosmologists study actually have their origins “outside the box,” in the larger setting….

Better? 🙂

I just want to point out as well, that I bring two other words forward to be related, and these will be “cave” and “room.”

See: What is Dark Matter/Energy?

Exactly what is ‘Thinking Outside the Box’?

A reason I often hear for the need for innovation training is to get “our team to think outside the box.”

This may come from the person at the top who feels that the quality of solutions or ideas is not great. This stems from frustration. It also comes from people working in teams who feel that the contribution of others is not helping find new and original solutions to the challenges they face.

If you have ever been in this situation, you will know how hard it is to deal with. Perhaps it is best to start with what this term actually means.

I don’t know of an official definition for “out of the box” thinking, but here is my perspective starting with “in the box” thinking.

Inside The Box

Thinking inside the box means accepting the status quo. For example, Charles H. Duell, Director of the US Patent Office, said, “Everything that can be invented has been invented.” That was in 1899: clearly he was in the box!

In-the-box thinkers find it difficult to recognize the quality of an idea. An idea is an idea. A solution is a solution. In fact, they can be quite pigheaded when it comes to valuing an idea. They rarely invest time to turn a mediocre solution into a great solution.

More importantly, in-the-box thinkers are skillful at killing ideas. They are masters of the creativity killer attitude such as “that’ll never work” or “it’s too risky.” The best in-the-box thinkers are unaware that they drain the enthusiasm and passion of innovative thinkers while they kill their innovative ideas.

They also believe that every problem needs only one solution; therefore, finding more than one possible solution is a waste of time. They often say, “There is no time for creative solutions. We just need THE solution.”

Even great creative people can become in-the-box thinkers when they stop trying. Apathy and indifference can turn an innovator into an in-the-box thinker.

In only one case is in-the-box thinking necessary. This comes from a cartoon: a man talks to his cat and points to the kitty litter box. He says, “Never ever think outside the box!”

Outside the Box
Thinking outside the box requires different attributes that include:

* Willingness to take new perspectives to day-to-day work.
* Openness to do different things and to do things differently.
* Focusing on the value of finding new ideas and acting on them.
* Striving to create value in new ways.
* Listening to others.
* Supporting and respecting others when they come up with new ideas.

Out-of-the box thinking requires an openness to new ways of seeing the world and a willingness to explore. Out-of-the box thinkers know that new ideas need nurturing and support. They also know that having an idea is good but acting on it is more important. Results are what count.

Stereotyping

Now as you can see, this aspect and characterization is not really fair, and it would be as if John Baez assigned crackpot status according to the degrees on which we can measure another human being and their worth? Or that Peter Woit’s string versus Non string in the index, can be shown to be, “IN the box people” and “out of the box people.”

But I am going to be more specific in that the room, box, or cave asks that you consider this POV 🙂 from “outside the box.” If you had thought Boltzman in this regard to the box, well, that’s okay.

Supercosmologists, think “outside the box.”

Now what exactly does this mean, and the frame of reference to a coordinate x’y’z’ is unmistakable is it not? Now surely one begins to see the light, and what has contained in the thinking mind, to a cosmologist’s view, that there is only a beginning, and an end, and nothing before, or after?

Well I am going to tell you that there are super cosmologists that do think outside the box. Beyond entropic valuations and arrow of time, and what pray tell could ever convince you that if the very idea of the future could be contained in the consciousness, what saids this cannot be expressed in the very universe?

So you see, I am at an advantage, whether this just a thought experiment, or something that can be added to Sean Carroll’s view to the universe, it is with some regard that I should also enlighten those who understand that “the valley” and what is contained in the genus figure, are the mappings of these figures, as they come to represent the very universe that could be expressed, as we look to ask what the shape of space is, in the expression of any multiversity created as in those baby universes.

So you get the sense then, that the false vacuum is “self apparent” as one sees the mountains can turn into valleys, and the the valleys, are a result of a much higher principal.:)

This entry was posted in Outside Time and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Are you an "in" or an "out of the box" kind of person?

  1. Anonymous says:

    Plato, I may have finally reached Sean’s limits, as my last comment keeps bouncing. Then again it may simply be a bug in the system. Anyway, on the assumption I’ve colored a little too far outsides the lines on my last post, here is my final one;Plato, I certainly agree that the place for this cyclical nature is within this universe. My point is that the very concept of “beginning and end” is a consequence of the narrative construct and this passage of time isn’t a fundamental dimension along which we travel from start to finish, whether that of our own lives, or of the universe as a singular unit, but are a consequence of the convective nature of motion, one side of which is the tendency to coalesce into discrete units, which external to their own perspective, go from being in the future to being in the past, as their internal frame goes from beginning to end. Here is an upcoming conference on alternatives to the Big Bang model;http://www.cosmology.info/2008conference/Regards,John Merrymanbrodix@hughes.net

  2. Plato says:

    John:Then again it may simply be a bug in the system.I am sure it is nothing to worry about.John:but are a consequence of the convective nature of motion, one side of which is the tendency to coalesce into discrete units, which external to their own perspective, go from being in the future to being in the past, as their internal frame goes from beginning to end.It’s almost as if you’ve given the very nature of “entropic valuations” an awareness of what it is doing?:) But thinking about what indicates the “formation while giving mass, and we think “okay we have this higg’s field with which to contend?”So we must look for what precedes such indications to include a planck time and what lies beyond this? So you look for such conditions that would give you a conformal approach to what we see inside in the blackhole, from the boundary condition.These are the lessons I had to learn from Bekenstein Bound, Lee Smolin’s interpretation of “the thing.”So such a beginning needs to be orientated, and the conditions supplied to lead one to the conditions currently being expressed in our universe.Thank you for the link,regards,

  3. PlatoHagel says:

    John:Then again it may simply be a bug in the system.I am sure it is nothing to worry about.John:but are a consequence of the convective nature of motion, one side of which is the tendency to coalesce into discrete units, which external to their own perspective, go from being in the future to being in the past, as their internal frame goes from beginning to end.It\’s almost as if you\’ve given the very nature of \”entropic valuations\” an awareness of what it is doing?:) But thinking about what indicates the \”formation while giving mass, and we think \”okay we have this higg\’s field with which to contend?\”So we must look for what precedes such indications to include a planck time and what lies beyond this? So you look for such conditions that would give you a conformal approach to what we see inside in the blackhole, from the boundary condition.These are the lessons I had to learn from Bekenstein Bound, Lee Smolin\’s interpretation of \”the thing.\”So such a beginning needs to be orientated, and the conditions supplied to lead one to the conditions currently being expressed in our universe.Thank you for the link,regards,

  4. Phil Warnell says:

    This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. Phil Warnell says:

    Hi John,After reading the open letter in New Scientist that relates to your point of view I can’t say that I am prompted to embrace it. That is because although I also find the inflationary explanation as linked to the big bang scenario as unsatisfactory; I at the same time perceive a limit to what your group is willing to consider as an alternative. For instance in the letter what is given as the viable alternatives when it says:“Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.”It appears that the only considered reasonable explanations rest with those that have our currently existing universe as being eternal while there are others such as Neil Turok’s that still deny this as being required and yet has no big bang or related singularity. Therefore, I also consider your own and the groups parameters to limiting to warrant to be called or deemed to be legitimate science. I would also make note that I find that Prof. Turok is not as endorser of the manifesto and thus speculate that he as well may have some objection or concern.Regards,Phil

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