From: Michael Hopkins IIMMI > Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2015 4:24 PM To: Jeffrey E. Subject: Re: He Jeffrey I think Jacob Lurie is more of an expert in category theory than I am, but I appreciate Yau's endorsement. I'm not sure I understand the questions in your first email. I'll have to ponder them. As for the others I'm not sure I know enough to think beyond the boiler plate answers. General Relativity tells us that gravity is an aspect of mass, so I wouldn't know how to think of it as a pseudo force. And "truly random" would be probably be taken to mean that the occurrence of an event does not increase the probability of it happening again. though I think Martin tells me that evolution, once it has solved a problem, is more likely to solve it again, so there may be a model of probability spaces that do have this property. Mike On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 11:43 AM, jeffrey E. <[email protected]> wrote: > query , is gravity merely a pseudo force. like centripetal , > created by the central limit theorem. so that it is a consequence of the probablitily > distribution of matter in the universe . nothing more. . 2. in a truly > random probability space. if an event occurs for the first time, > does it increase the probabliity that it will happen again. > On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 8:23 AM, jeffrey E. <[email protected]> wrote: » you says you are the schools expert in category theory. true? . 2 . is » there a topological equivalent to the power laws. ? 3 is there a geometric » derivation that is coherent ? 4, re language, as martin may have told you » i have been spending a great deal of time with Chomsky. i have been » trying to formalize the concept of signals ( images etc ) that are » coherent. . visual energy is first focused and then our vision » system eventually recognizes -separates , real world images from noise. a form » of a map? then arguably makes judgements based on similar ( distances from » already existing maps e