This provides for a beginning point of discussion about the parameters of our thinking in terms of the resolution to our experiences. Do they run further then the constraints we apply to them? In science your boxed in, and you replay all components in the hopes that you can extend or explain the problem and arrive at a conclusion which provides for a stepping off point for furthering the limitations of those constraints.

Intuition and Logic in Mathematics by Henri Poincaré

On the other hand, look at Professor Klein: he is studying one of the most abstract questions of the theory of functions to determine whether on a given Riemann surface there always exists a function admitting of given singularities. What does the celebrated German geometer do? He replaces his Riemann surface by a metallic surface whose electric conductivity varies according to certain laws. He connects two of its points with the two poles of a battery. The current, says he, must pass, and the distribution of this current on the surface will define a function whose singularities will be precisely those called for by the enunciation.

For me the extension here was to see that billiard balls that collide are somehow extended to believe that the greater opportunity here has been to carry the relevance to the sound that is generated at those moments. This carries in a sense as a geometrical expression defined in in Euclidean beginning about a point and then geometrically “all things follow.” This is a schematically drawing if you like about beginnings, yet it is about the dynamical progression of how the non-euclidean moves even more into projective geometries. All of this is a framework for views about the world in which we live and part of the reality. So you apply this to the cosmos.

So given here a parameter with which one wants to talk about and how we can see in the materialist world, the constraint is found in the expression of correlation and meaning about the geometry we live with. This was defined by the beginning of a Newtonian experience, and in a sense I am showing the diversity of this explanation about reality as Euclid’s determination and postulates which were extended.

Gauss and Riemann gave a freedom that a Euclidean could never appreciate, had not the quest of others helped Riemann to make the leap.

You have define the issue about spirit as related to “a Heaven,” yet we are here talking about the mundane? Moving from the issue of the constraints we have applied to our selves in terms of the archaic forms. We do not want to induce religion as to define our experience but to talk about what science has to say about the entanglement we have with nature? Would you not agree?

While of course the opening is about Heaven is it defined in terms of the experience portrayed. I am suggesting that there is a contact with nature that is indeed subtle with regard to consciousness defined “as focus.” So in a sense experience suggests a deep impact and meaning to its person that can be correlated with others of similar experiences?