Brian D. Josephson Department of Physics, University of Cambridge The point in regard to mathematical thinking, which motivates our model, is the following. Consider first of all what the brain does in visual perception. Here the primary information from the visual receptors goes through various levels of processing until it ends up as a high-level representation of the content of the visual field. It is not unreasonable to identify mathematics as a similar process, except that higher levels of abstraction are involved in this case. With the visual case, the mechanics are straightforward: the visual field typically contains for example edges, for which abstraction a dedicated neural system has evolved, related to our ability to perceive edges. It is hard to see why we should have such ready access to higher mathematical abstractions having little connection with experience (Penrose 1994). One resolution of the problem would be for mathematical concepts to be in some way ‘in the physics’, rather than being emergent properties of brains. In case it is felt that such a drastic solution is not necessary to explain our ready access to mathematical ideas, and that neural networks can provide an adequate explanation, a stronger argument for the existence of some kind of Platonic realm can be made on the basis of the aesthetic aspect of music (Josephson and Carpenter 1996). http://www.sophists.org/downloads/physics_esp.txt [Broken] If you accept such paradigmal features in these new models what is the outcome? Since I am a fringe string theorist you can label me crackpot and I could get away with it:) The aspects of imaging that I find developes is most interesting as I look at the mathematical discriptors, as way in which to describe what the visonistic mathematics is doing. That I refer George Lakoff and 0f the principals of origination in mathematics, it becomes a interesting feature, that such probabilistic events could arise out of nowhere and then follows some geometrical consistancy model that is hoped for. How do you do that in quantum gravity? So for me the ideas of the marble drop become a significant factor in trying to make sense of pascal's triangle as such feature and pathway of expression. But still this does not answer the call of origination, and roads to develope new math processes that would extend ths vision beyond the limitations that currently strangles further theoretical developement? So having understood this how does paradigmal shifts, allow one to see differently and extends vision, if you do not assume that principals of these new theories? 1. You have to assume probabilistic features exist? What lies beneath. 2. That there is a point of origination? 3. That this information can be expressed through this point? 4. That when it does, it assumes the characteristic of all human constructs, to date, and that lacking such a discritption, would remain unexplainable? So can we say in strig theory such a point can become realized by the energy determination? That lacking euclidean direction here of point line plane that we move this "expression" to another realm for consideration:) Point circle cylinder, and then as energy expressed, twist and turn? Sounds like the macarana to me:) or doing the Bose NOva.