On 11/26/06, J. Storrs Hall, PhD. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
But I really think that the metric properties of the spaces continue to help even at the very highest levels of abstraction. I'm willing to spend some time giving it a shot, anyway. So we'll see!
I was thinking about the N-space representation of an idea... Then I thought about the tilting table analogy Richard posted elsewhere (sorry, I'm terrible at citing sources) Then I starting wondering what would happen if the N-space geometric object were not an idea, but the computing machine - responding to the surface upon which it found itself. So if the 'computer' (brain, etc.) were a simple sphere like a marble affected by gravity on a wobbly tabletop, the phase space would be straightforward. It's difficult to conceive of an N dimensional object in an N+m dimensional tabletop being acted upon by some number of gravity analogues. Is this at least in the right direction of what you are proposing? Have you projected the dimensionality of the human brain? That would at least give a baseline upon which to speculate - especially considering that we have enough difficulty understanding "perspective" dimension on a 2D painting, let alone conceive of (and articulate) dimensions higher than our own. (assuming the incompleteness theorem isn't expressly prohibiting it) ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
