Einstein’s revolutionary theories grew from his philosophy of nature and insistence that physical laws must be true on Earth, space ships and stars, combined with a phenomenal intuition for nature and enough self-confidence to rewrite Newton’s laws of gravitation and motion. Einstein interpreted experiments from the 1880s, which suggested that the speed of light was independent of the observer’s motion, as meaning that the speed of light is constant throughout the universe. He then proposed that mass would affect light and spacetime, which is the backdrop for all events, atomic, human, cosmic and comic.
Compare Greene's speck, for instance, which is 'physically identical to the great expanse we view in the heavens above' to Blake's 'world in a grain of sand'.
And the greater the number of objects, the more respects in which they vary, and the greater the number of varieties in each respect, the greater will be the of regularities.
The vast light-distances between civilizations, their continuous local acceleration via STEM compression, and the curious time-travel properties of black holes together suggest the great unlikelihood of any civilization communicating through normal slowspaceon their way to their respective transcensions.
In other words, the special self-organization of our universe, with its speed of light limit and the great gulf between intelligent civilizations allows only developmental messages over interstellar distances.
In my comparatively simple animation it only takes THREE inward-zooming steps to move from the largest frame to the smallest, but the principle is the same. And I have no way of showing the frenetic, turbulent forms that the space-time continuum displays, in his video, at the level of the very smallest frame. But the simple animation that I present here will suffice to suggest why I was intrigued by Brian's animation, given the fact that I am apt to conceive of consciousness as also comprised of a series of nested frames - as the reader will know if he or she has read other articles at this site.
Kuhn's historical work covered several topics in the history ofphysics and astronomy. During the 1950s his focus was primarily on theearly theory of heat and the work of Sadie Carnot. However, his firstbook concerned the Copernican revolution in planetary astronomy(1957). This book grew out of the teaching he had done on JamesConant's General Education in Science curriculum at Harvard but alsopresaged some of the ideas of The Structure of ScientificRevolutions. In detailing the problems with the Ptolemaic systemand Copernicus’ solution to them, Kuhn showed two things. First,he demonstrated that Aristotelian science was genuine science and thatthose working within that tradition, in particular those working onPtolemaic astronomy, were engaged in an entirely reasonable andrecognizably scientific project. Secondly, Kuhn showed that Copernicuswas himself far more indebted to that tradition than had typicallybeen recognized. Thus the popular view that Copernicus was a modernscientist who overthrew an unscientific and long-outmoded viewpoint ismistaken both by exaggerating the difference between Copernicus andthe Ptolemaic astronomers and in underestimating the scientificcredentials of work carried out before Copernicus. This mistakenview—a product of the distortion caused by our current state ofknowledge—can be rectified only by seeing the activities ofCopernicus and his predecessors in the light of the puzzles presentedto them by tradition that they inevitably had to work with. While Kuhndoes acknowledge the influence of causes outside science (such as aresurgence in Sun worship (1962/70a, 152–3)), he nonethelessemphasizes the fact that astronomers were responding primarily toproblems raised within science. What appealed to them inCopernicus’ model was its ability to do away with ad hoc devicesin Ptolemy's system (such as the equant), to explain key phenomena ina pleasing fashion (the observed retrograde motion of the planets),and to explain away otherwise inexplicable coincidences in Ptolemy'ssystem (such as the alignment of the Sun and the centres of theepicycles of the inferior planets).
Kuhn continued to develop his conceptual approach toincommensurability. At the time of his death he had made considerableprogress on a book in which he related incommensurability to issues indevelopmental psychology and concept acquisition.
That is the apparent performance limit of any "computronium" (computational matter,after Amato 1991) that a future intelligence might create in this physical universe.
Consequently, nothing more can be concluded than that he passes over a distance greater than the sum of any finite number of the above series of terms.
Here, though an inference from a universal to the particular under it is always valid, yet a procedure which greatly resembles this would be sophistical if the universal were one of those propositions which does not assert the existence of its subject.