Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael2Wolves
When I speak of good and evil, negative and positive, I speak of forces of nature beyond our perception, but not necessarily beyond those of science. In a purely additive/subtractive sense, if what we are doing is subtractive (whether of another's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, or anything else), we are acting on the side of the entropic, i.e., black/evil/selfish/negative/insert-adjective-here side of the yin/yang. If what we are doing selflessly adds to someone else's existence, we are acting on the side of the additive, i.e., white/good/selfless/positive/insert-adjective-here side of the yin/yang. That's why I believe Taoism came very close (without even realizing it) to a phsyical description of our universe and it's peculiar brand of reality, on top of the religious aspects of it. Yet, it's not the whole.
This is why I said that I believe mankind is, as self-aware creatures independent of each other, seemingly heading towards a collective self-awareness as one organism, much like how higher order intelligence spawns from lesser animals like fish and birds. I think we're heading towards a singularity of consciousness. Nature is, above all else, evolving for one purpose, and that is the transmission of information/energy from one thing to another. This is why that pattern is repeated from the macroscopic (stars and planetary orbits, for instance) down to the microscopic (quarks and photons and neutrinos). This higher level order rising from lower level order is a direct violation of the second law of thermodynamics, and yet, it happens all the time. This, ladies and gentlemen, is what is referred to as a clue.
And all of this fits perfectly not within Einsteinian physics, but within Bohmian physics which is the true TOE (theory of everything) if there ever was one. Look it up some time. It accounts for, and resolves, a lot of paradoxes and unexplained oddities of classic physics. Which brings me to the language of the universe, and that, assuredly, is mathematics. Math is eternal. Nothing else comes close. Physics of the astro- and theoretical kind is a relative new comer on the stage of mankind's existence, but algebra has been around since the dawn of man.
And the particular brand of mathematics used by nature are fractals. Everything in creation forms in fractal patterns, from the tiniest to the largest, and that pattern is a pattern because it repeats forever. And what kind of fractal is it? A sine wave. A sine wave is the most basic building block of nature because before matter could form, energy was required. Thus, immediately at the big bang energy was released, and then matter formed as energy encountered the second law of thermodynamics, slowing and transforming into matter. And energy in its most efficient form is always in a sine wave, never square or saw tooth.
Everything repeats, in infinite variations and infinite permutations. All bound between two poles of additive/subtractive, energy/non-energy, light/dark, forever under tension like a guitar string. This is part of the natural order. And that is why I say it is dangerous for man to attempt to redefine that--not because it will affect nature, but because it will affect his perception of it.
Sorry, I'm rambling. lol This is what I have going through my head constantly. Like looking down one of those weird optical illusions...
 |
Michael,
I wish that I had the time to respond to every post but I don’t — so I pick and choose. I find your messages the most
disturbing, though and feel a compulsion to respond.
I’m not sure that you mean ‘entropic’ (lacking in order or predictability, i.e. chaos, disorder) when we behave on the side of selfishness (if I may use the word in place of evil, which I find largely subjective). And I don’t think that any religion/philosophy has
ever come close to describing the physical Universe — science, really, only dabbles in that Great Unknown.
As for ‘collective consciousness’? I find that idea smacking of a new-age-fiction with absolutely no scientific support. Maybe it could be found in sentient alien species, but not on this planet. Not amongst any Earth life forms. Yes, we’re evolved from primal sea creatures and, yes, higher intelligence has evolved — but not spawned — from life in the primordial soup but we retain little in common with the single-celled organism.
You write that ‘nature has evolved’ for a singular ‘purpose’ — the transmission of information and energy to one another. The whole of nature (birds, beasts, and flowers) isn’t on a single track; we have evolved and will die out as
species — not in some sort of evolutionary equalities. Again, you’re seeing (or seeking) patterns where none exist. That’s folly, I think.
Evolutionary processes are only random from a distance; up close we know why some dinosaurs died whilst others evolved and we know why woolly mammoths went extinct. We have a partial puzzle of how we, homo sapiens, mutated from other species. We’re awash with scientific possibilities but we lack scientific certainty in many, many fields. I cannot even say that that which makes me laugh will make you laugh; cannot say the my beauty will be the same as yours. We’re not so much individual beings as we are individual
mutants (and I believe that evolutionary biologists would agree).
I’m not sure how you jumped from lower-higher postulations to Einstein and much less certain why you cite Bohm’s theoritals as a (or the) Theory of Everything. Did Bohm make that claim? The physicists and practitioners of higher maths that I know wouldn’t make such claims for any partial theories; although I know that Bohm is in vogue presently.
The one thing that I can agree with you on is that mathematics is the lingua franca of the Universe; but the words are a toddler’s utterances and there are thus no complete sentences to weave into paragraphs. No, algebra was not present at the dawn of our species — it hasn’t accompanied us for 200, 000 years. Rather, maths sprung from that Mesopotamian ‘cradle of civilization’ just over 5,000 years ago; a nascent science. There are no fractal patterns and similarities (fractals) only explain mutations over periods of time. I’m not sure that you’ve grasped the Big Bang which posits that an incredibly dense ‘object’ comprised of mostly matter and smaller amounts of energy exploded to eventually form all of the extant matter and energy of this Universe. The idea that energy created matter defies fundamental physics and directly destroys the very core of relativity. (Energy can neither be created or destroyed.)
Sine waves aren’t ‘universal,’ and I’ve never heard them described as the essence of energy. Do you have a source?
To my knowledge, the Universe isn’t binary — no ying-yang — nor does everything (arguably
anything ‘repeat.’ Time is our artificial measurement of the incomprehensible seeming continuum of a misunderstanding. We can now predict, with no great accuracy, the years since the birth of our Universe as well as it’s demise. With greater accuracy, maybe, we predict the raging death of our Sun and our Solar System. What we know with some certainty is, that like our consciousness, our Universe was born and that it will die. Everything else is amusing.
Finally.
I mean no personal attacks yet I realize that this thread is argumentative. I’m loathe to ‘look things up’ via Google or in any other manner: You can argue that I’m responding from the ‘top of my head,’and you’d be right. If I’m wrong about anything that I’ve written, and you’ve proofs, please let me know. I would like to suggest that you might be more persuasive if you could offer objective sources for what I read as subjective alternative facts. Let’s both deal in brass tacks?