Can theoretical science be married with literary style to create a work tearing at the very fabric of our understanding?
It's called Finnegans Wake.
>>8214410
You want shit like that in a book? Unless properly elucidated and adumberated, then no.
>>8214410
No, because nobody has ever nor will ever cogently understand both science and literature enough to produce such a book
there are scifags who write shitty books and litfags who falsely believe they like and understand science, but that's about it
dont post anymore until youre outta highschool and done smoking pot
Yes it's called Gravity's Rainbow.
>>8214410
i felt the breaking of the boundary of communication in some parts of ulysses, but i was high as shit when i read it...
>>8214410
>the very fabric of our understanding?
What, like our brains? Brain-tearing literature?
I don't think it works, as everything but math is just an analogy. Also, it's not necessary, as math is beautiful in itself.
In your pic we have
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_in_a_box#Energy_levels
You get there in 2 years undergrad physics.
Also,
>dS=dU/T
>tfw dW=0
>>8214410
mysticism is the science of ontology.
as such, requires prior experience. education you could say
>>8214410
>married
that's cute
>>8214465
>mfw i've been developing a quantum theory of most tantumizing affairs
Aristotle?
>>8214410
Mallarmé?
>>8214410
Black Holes and Time Warps and Godel, Escher, Bach do this: using stories and literary tropes to explore the boundaries of human understanding
>>8214465
>litfags who falsely believe they like and understand science
Read more.
