@scottdonaldson2458

1 year ago

I have been originally trained as an Electrical Engineer and have spent, quite literally, the rest of my life casually looking at Chaos Theory (I am now 60 yrs old). Chaos theory is beginning to question many of these very issues that Mr. (Dr.). Sheldrake is referring to. I have even seen a number of PhD's in engineering and physics directly question the models that they are using and come up with alternative descriptions of reality. Dr. Tiller (from I think Cal Tech) comes immediately to mind. In fact, the CLOSED system thinking that modern physics uses may be causing a number of the inherent problems (and ultimately creating their own paradoxes, zero point energy = infinity, is an example) in the current description of reality. Open system thinking may be much better suited to the reality that we see - even if the ultimate universe is effectively closed. It is OPEN from "our perspective" due to its overwhelming magnitude. This also may require a reaction diffusion wave (like the one used to describe modern computer chips) as a basic underlying wave structure rather than the "mechanical wave" modern physics currently subscribes to. [Note: Mathematics tends to lead other fields of inquiry. Mathematics, is unlike any of the physics fields. It does not come about its thinking empirically as physics does, but rather through the deductions of logic. It is an "internal" rather than "external" form of thinking if you will, or as Plato would have said, from a three term proportion rather than a 4 term proportion. In most cases, Modern physics is from a 4 term proportional form of thought. Moreover, because of this internal deductive viewpoint, any two mathematicians will always come to the same conclusions when looking at the same information This is a result of the deductive form of thinking. In Mathematics, a proof is always a proof, just the realm of its application may be subsumed into larger and larger fields of understanding. In other words, even when Other forms of geometry came about, Euclidean geometry was still true, we have just found other forms of geometry that are also true, and we have to look at the specific situation to see which one to apply. Ie exactly what does the problem subscribe itself to] An example of the problem Mr.(Dr.) Sheldrake is referring to, in modern physics is the concept of life "popping" up only after we have reached a certain level of complexity. In other words, currently physics makes the decision that we are only conscious because of our complexity . Consciousness itself is just a matter of complexity. This assumption seems rather implausible, but it is the current (or at least was) assumption used by physicist. Perhaps a better description of reality may be life occurring depending on the internal processing the entity is actually using (ie open or closed system processing- open system processing (balance in motion ie. K.E.= min) is used by a living system and closed system processing (balance - ie. P.E. = min) by a dead one), and the level of intellect is just a matter of how much internal processing we are capable of. In fact, Benoit Mandelbrot created the fractal dimension which is measures complexity by looking at the "internal" twisting or convolution of a data set; and many data sets (and certainly almost all living systems) get more complicated the closer you look, not less. This type of internal thinking, typically, is why Mathematics tends to lead physics and other scientific forms of thinking. Perhaps we should look at our underlying scientific assumptions very closely, because we are most likely to be thinking FROM those assumptions rather than TO those assumptions. Modern Physics has about 22 paradoxes that they currently can't resolve, and perhaps the underlying (often hidden) assumptions are actually causing the problem. Perhaps a shift from a closed system paradigm to an open system paradigm may resolve many of these issues. It appears Mr. (Dr.) Sheldrake is, very likely, looking at the problem from an open systems paradigm. Of course, this holistic form of thinking may cause people to come to the ultimate conclusion that the holographic sum total of the universe is 1) more powerful than that linear combination of elements that make it up (ie. non linear) and 2) acts quite like a God of our universe (and perhaps the God that Kurt Gödel proved existed after Einstein died) if you will, where you are both responsible for your own actions and succeeded or failed as primarily a result of that form of action but also you must still must subscribe to the desires and actions of the whole. Perhaps the split is something like 90-10 in general and sometimes 10-90 in particular situations) In other words, you succeed primarily based on your own actions but also the combination of your actions coupled with the actions of the whole and how well these action fit together. Going in a particular direction if the whole is going in a different direction doesn't make much sense unless you know the whole is about to change direction. I don't know (I haven't spent any time trying to determine this) that this God matches the Christian thought of God (or any other for that matter), but I also don't think modern liberalism is ready to accept this form of thought either. It would simply mean too much self responsibility (90% in general). Mental Individualization is very difficult for many people to accept and is not of much use politically.

37 |