Thanks for the poem Jim. Love it! The diagram is AI generated and doesn't actually make much sense the way it came out. It is a play spacetime diagrams used to describe relativity. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime_diagram
Yes, AI is not so good at diagrams yet. I don't know if human brains are designed for understanding relativity. Mine isn't. But I do get (see) here and now and, as someone once put it now-here or nowhere. Enough for me.
Nice post Dan. Special and General Relativity really to seem to fit nicely in a Headless model.
I was thrilled to see this post with a Bertrand Russell book, coincidently I'm into one of his small books now, it's called "introduction to Mathematical Philosophy. In that book he says that mathematics can be pursued in either of two opposite directions. Constructive towards gradually increasing complexity: from integers to fractions, real numbers, complex numbers, from addition and multiplication to differentiation and integration and on and on to higher mathematics. The Other direction, which is less familiar is proceeds by analyzing, to a greater and greater abstractness and logical SIMPLICITY. In this regard I think mathematical philosophy has a relationship with Headlessness as well. for example what do we mean when we say ONE or Twoness or Emptiness. Just understanding the integers is the start of the journey.
Looks like Russell wrote the ABC's in 1925, the Einstein-Podolski-Rosen (EPR Paradox) was not known about till 1935, so May have to update the 'no action at a distance' part. I'm not sure about that.
Quantum mechanics implies instantaneous correlations between entangled particles, no matter how far apart they are.
This seems like action at a distance—but it's not one you can use to send signals.
It's really cool episode, that I'm going to have to listen again.
My in-here and your in-here
In fact are quite the same.
My out-there and yours, my dear
Are not, so I proclaim.
The frame's the same.
The picture's not.
For wisdom that is
All I've got.
----------------
I think that is what you are saying,
but I don't understand the chart.
I don't suppose I need to.
Thanks for the poem Jim. Love it! The diagram is AI generated and doesn't actually make much sense the way it came out. It is a play spacetime diagrams used to describe relativity. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime_diagram
Yes, AI is not so good at diagrams yet. I don't know if human brains are designed for understanding relativity. Mine isn't. But I do get (see) here and now and, as someone once put it now-here or nowhere. Enough for me.
Nice! Thanks for posting Jim!
Nice post Dan. Special and General Relativity really to seem to fit nicely in a Headless model.
I was thrilled to see this post with a Bertrand Russell book, coincidently I'm into one of his small books now, it's called "introduction to Mathematical Philosophy. In that book he says that mathematics can be pursued in either of two opposite directions. Constructive towards gradually increasing complexity: from integers to fractions, real numbers, complex numbers, from addition and multiplication to differentiation and integration and on and on to higher mathematics. The Other direction, which is less familiar is proceeds by analyzing, to a greater and greater abstractness and logical SIMPLICITY. In this regard I think mathematical philosophy has a relationship with Headlessness as well. for example what do we mean when we say ONE or Twoness or Emptiness. Just understanding the integers is the start of the journey.
Looks like Russell wrote the ABC's in 1925, the Einstein-Podolski-Rosen (EPR Paradox) was not known about till 1935, so May have to update the 'no action at a distance' part. I'm not sure about that.
Quantum mechanics implies instantaneous correlations between entangled particles, no matter how far apart they are.
This seems like action at a distance—but it's not one you can use to send signals.
It's really cool episode, that I'm going to have to listen again.
Thanks Eric. I'll have to check out that Intro to Math Philosophy book.