BΞLBΛSΛUR

How to Finish

Recently I stumbled upon an idea I called “dimensions of thinking” which I want to introduce you today.

Although it shouldn’t be seen as something exactly the same as regular physical/ mathematical dimensions, it can offer very many analogue comparisons.

Let me introduce you to some of my ideas in the following part:

Thinking has 3 dimensions:

1st Dim.: Depth of thought, like: How deep am I into the given topic?

2nd Dim.: broad-range of thought,  like: How many fields does my thinking span?/

       How many topics does it cut?

3rd Dim.: “Time” (”velocity”) of thinking,  like: How can the first two dimensions be transformed/ processed?

Whilst depth and broad-range are the frameworks (like space in the spacetime continuum) of the entities (those entities are mainly knowledge, facts, comparing to objects in the “spacetime”) of thinking, the velocity is the execution and transformation thereof (, similar to the time dimension in the spacetime continuum).

At first I declare the words and analogies used:

Depth and broad-range are like space dimensions: They are a basement for the entities that lie within this framework.

Entities are facts, or “knowledge” and are similar to mass and energy in the spacetime continuum. They lie within the basement (the 3 dimensions).

Velocity of thinking is more like the time dimension of the spacetime continuum and can’t be split from the other two dimensions. (They form a continuum just as the spacetime continuum itself!) They are a kind of basement for the entities as well.

Also, “velocity” (We could call it “time dimension of thinking” as well!) could also be declared as the “execution and transformation of the space dimensions”.

I thought further and would even state the following:

“Velocity of thinking” itself can be split into “holistic thinking” (, with less details considered and more focused on the big picture), and “reductionistic thinking” (, with main focus on the details).

Important to know is that both holistic as well as reductionistic thinking are part of the same, just as history and future; Together they shape the “arrow of time” in thinking processes.

Hence, the moment is the point where holistic and reductionistic thinking clash together.

There arises an important question in my head I would like to introduce:

Which philosophy (holsim/ reductionism) could be analogous to which time in the arrow of time (past/future)?

At the current moment I don’t know and have absolutely no single clue about that one…

Perhaps it’s because of the case that it can’t be split as easily as we’d like to!

It is because the entire philosophy behind the “arrow of time” is a bit more complex than imagined on a linear plane.

Hence, time is indeed a vivid interplay of cause and effect and not just a single “This is past and this is future”-thing!

Thus I have to correct myself:

Reductionism and holism are not comparable to past and future, but to cause and effect

And then we escape into a similar question:

Which philosophy (holsim/ reductionism) could be analogous to cause and which to effect?

Again it can’t be put into such a simple notation, for each dimension of thinking needs to be “quantized”, because there needs to be a quantum of thoughts, in this case the “entities” (alias facts,) to exist.

There can’t be just one thought. It needs to be a “package”, a so called “quantum”.

Seven circle theorem.

Recognized as one of the greatest minds that comes along once in a generation, he acquired the Nobel Prize in 1965 for discovering the principles of quantum electrodynamics, which predicts how all types of particles of light and matter interact with  or with the electromagnetic field, and makes electrical forces.

An intellectual with a high level of creativity, Feynman was also known for his uncanny sense of humor and reputation as a party animal. We dare you to read his inspiring, humorous and witty words of wisdom below.

Brachistochrone Problem & cycloid.

GIF: Source is Vsauce / The Brachistochrone : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skvnj67YGmw.

Which is the quickest path? …. The cycloidis is the curve which yields the quickest descent.

Suppose there is an incline such as that shown in Figure 1. When a ball rolls from A to B, which curve yields the shortest duration? Let’s assume that we have three hypotheses: a straight line, a quadratic, and a cycloid. The shortest path from A to B is the straight line, so one might think that the straight path is the fastest, but in fact it is surprisingly slow. It’s better to select a path which has a downward drop in order to accelerate the ball in the first phase, so that it rolls quickly. The ball arrives earlier on the quadratic path than on the straight line path. However, increasing the degree of the function causes the ball to travel more slowly on the flat section.

It is said that Galileo (1564-1642) first presented this problem. It is also known that the cycloid is the curve which yields the quickest descent. This time I will discuss this problem, which may be handled under the field known as the calculus of variations, or variational calculus in physics, and introduce the charming nature of cycloid curves.