Share. But I also think you can have a netsearch and make your own mind about
it instead of waiting for somebody else to do all the work for you.
Thankfully some people are making sense of what I say after all.
Now, the texts written by Plato argue a universal construction based on
what came to be known as Platonic solids. The name is not correct from
my point of view since he himself said that he was instructed in Egypt.
Same applies to Solon, Pythagoras and others...
Now these solids are perfect in the sense that they have many properties
which are normally termed esthetically pleasing or even mathematically
regular : like a regular tetrahedron.
They are : Tetrahedron, Cube, Octagon, Dodecagon, Isocahedron,
as far as I can remember.
Now their constituents have 2D representations on paper which we also term
"perfect" :
equilateral triangle, square, etc...
The solids have several lines and planes of symmetry and by combining them you
get other representations of these basic solids. My hunch is that what we're
looking for at the Plank scale or quantum scale, the particles termed
super-symmetric in super-strings theory can and will be represented in
the shape of these basic "Platonic solids".
The language at the time of Plato and before was not the same
as today. The terms are different, but I think you'll find some
ideas that can apply to modern physics (albeit on a philosophical level, but
I do think the maths is in there too).
See also the forum at the site called The Edge (there's Third Culture and
The Reality
Club as well there) and check out the articles and opinions about "The problem
of time in quantum cosmology".
What I meant is that I'm convinced we're rediscovering stuff known for ages, but
once we realise this, we'll understand how to view ancient texts (seemingly
unscientific) in a new light, and our progress in science will benefit greatly.
Just as Newton was benefitting by working on the hebrew version of the TRH.
But not many people know that even though it is mentioned in some of the
more serious biographies. "Here !", you'll say again : "another one of those
statements without references". Go find out why Newton was doing this. But keep
an open mind. And search.
Trouble is with terms. Scientists dismiss the words "astrology" and they
don't see
the underlying principles that can be appplied at any time. They dismiss the
old saying that "the destiny of man depends on the movement of stars",
because they
don't have the wider picture (ego gets in the way). And the wider picture is :
Of course we depend on our planet and other planets which orbit around it, and
the Sun and everything else because it's a delicate balance of everything linked
and at any time this balance could be upset and we'd be helpless if we don't
progress
sufficiently rapidly in our comprehension of things. Thus you understand my
sadness when people will not listen and think but rather act and speak
dismissively.
And those studying only astrology want no part of "astronomy" and they don't see
that some parts of their models which were correct at the time of their
conception have
to be revised because the configurations change. There's equinoctial precession,
etc...
Forget the terms and study both. That's what I do. A type of learning in
parallel. Juggling with seemingly different and contradictory meme set
(contradictory only for people with minds closed enough to think there's
nothing else than their own partial truth).
And learning is now very fast this way, for me. I'll be going back
to pure maths again soon.
And as soon as I have more time, this is what I'm going to gulp down :
1. Astronomy
2. Astrology (All types preserved in scriptures : Arabic, Jewish, R+C,
Vedic, etc).
3. Heterotic Superstrings theory.
4. Physical Theory of information.
5. Plato and others...
6. Quantum mechanics, etc...
They're all the same.
BTW, I think Roger Penrose must be studying scriptures as well : his ideas
coincide
greatly (spin networks, ORCH OR etc...). Except for his arguments against strong
AI (IMHO : the top-down has to be merged with the bottom-up approach and
then you'll
have strong AI - see Igor Aleksander's Magnus for a machine which has will
and emotions
), I agree he's very strong.
Yash.