What do you think -- either/or, or both and more?
There are many, many ways to say that there is some kind of resonance going on. Aesthetics is one impression or expression. Initially, when reading yanniru's question/statement, I was thinking about the mathematics, particularly the rational widgets, all being geared back into stochiometry, which is basically about fit and/or resonance and, one or my favorites: nested structure or actually, the nested structured-duality -- if we are to paradoxically but adroitly acquire a solid non-dual understanding of ourselves down into the technological/symbolic/transformational depths of our surroundings.
It seems to me we might benefit by by noticing that associations and relations do involve the nested, both and more circumstance and that the symbolism, or the conceptual model of nested structured~duality is the imagery that we seek to model the type of vibratory standing waves and transportation needed in this neck of the quantum gravitational woods.
Additionally, what most often turns out to be false are our beliefs -- our paradigmatic assumptions. Don't you think?
Those flawed associations are merely one small (and negotiable) fraction of the local nested structured~duality.
Both AND more: math and stochiometry -- math and energy and matter and associations and memories and protein-folding and nested fields within nested fields...
Nesting is a core, central feature, supporting both and more.
Best regards,
Ralph Frost
http://frostscientific.com
With joy you will draw water
from the wells of salvation. Isaiah 12:3
The fact that there is any difference whatsoever between physics, chemistry, and biology is evidence that mathematics is not enough. The universe is not only driven by aesthetics, the universe is nothing but aesthetic phenomena, with math as a the filing system.
--- In jcs-online@yahoogroups.com,wrote:
>
> The universe is driven by physics, chemistry and biology.
> Mathematics allows infinities which are forbidden in physics.
> Beauty and perhaps truth are a result of nature.
> But due to randomness, also ugliness and falsehood.
> Richard
>
No comments:
Post a Comment
Leave a comment