..i was sort of more alluding to which came first, the cicle, the axis, or the log {sic} (his famous identity if you wiki).chrismb wrote:Feel free!... Presumably you raise him for his own use of circles in set diagrams, a use not previously prescribed.rcain wrote: ...can i just mention Euler at this point...?
My thesis is that we just don't know whether many of these 'ancient' inventions were just random event coming together, random ideas, and/or a mixture of both. My contention is that if we just say "ah well, it just evolved and no-one really thought about it" and do not seek to analyse that process and see if we can accelerate it, then we're doomed just to 'hang around' until some event comes up with the ideas, entirely at the whim of random circumstances and probabilities. And with that attitude, is it any wonder that innovation on fusion energy has stalled?!
What is it that enables us to see the value and use of 'a plate' or 'a bucket' that a monkey can't see? There is, quite literally, "more than meets the eye" when it comes to humans making use of new ideas. But it still doesn't happen easily - despite how much you may have convinced yourself that it is otherwise - so how do we generate new concepts, and learn to spot others generating useful ones?
all is derivative.... upon the shoulders of giants, (evolution), etc. to set humans (or human genius) too far apart from the animal (or natural) is hubris and delusion. in that they are 'language', they are the same.
imho.
this does not help polywell.
