Diigo Links

Tuesday, June 01, 2010



I've been thinking of falling again.




It didn't all start with, but it is pointed to by cutting 19 tails of unicorns from a single sheet of paper.
You see, you can only get 19 tails of a certain size if they're spooning (tessellating tails they were).
While cutting one tail I realized, "I'm actually cutting another". Alice in Wonderland moment, I wondered.
It's as if while writing this sentence, I could also be writing; "It's as if while writing this sentence, I could also be writing". (a subject well covered in Hofstadter's "GEB") and then I go straight to the infamous E8 Lie group. Explore that here ( deferentialgeometry.org/epe/ )
Marvel at the pointy dots and the dance they do. It'll do your head in.

I've got this sneaky feeling (and I think Roger Penrose and Ed Witten have it too), that when you start talking about "space" and "time" as derived artifacts of mass and energy, you've got a few cognitive knobs (rusted on knobs) that need to be turned.




It's got to be.

This all goes to the argument about language. It goes down to a very core argument about thought. If we take for gospel that language and thought are at least related, what can we say about this relationship? Do we say that they're inextricably bound? Or can we see language as the tower of Babel, itself leading us to a world of thought free of language? And having transcended "language-thought" would there be anything we could bring back? Is there any "use" in it?

Well that's the funny little puzzle, isn't it? Being "useful" isn't necessarily the universe's thing. It may be that the "universe" is "made of" a stuff that is only/best understood without words, without "rational thought", without use. This set we designate as "universe" couldn't give a rat's ass whether we can explain it in words or numbers. The words and the numbers may be of this universe, but it's certainly not a given that these are the fundamental method of it. There could very well be a fundamental method of the universe available to us, but which does not intersect with the sets of language or mathematics - or it may contain them wholly or in parts.

The point is, we're not able to discount the possibility that we're on our way to abandoning the ground of rational thought towards a flight of something more. It has happened before. There was a fall at some point. We fell into consciousness, self consciousness - differentiation. There has never been any indication, having fallen once, that it can't happen again. In fact, having fallen once, it proves that there is a "there" we came from, and a "to" we've arrived at. A beyond is almost certain.

No comments: