greetings my friends, to those I have seen and those I have not yet
I bid you fond welcome and well met
I had the privilege the other evening of watching a few recorded dissertations on cosmology
this is a subject that I love and that fascinates me, because in my mind this is how the mystic and the scientific
will eventually merge
I have long been of the thought that empirical science has purposely obfuscated much fact and data
as much as I believe they have developed systems of communication that are meant to deny comprehension by folks they deem
It is because of this thought that I have studied so many facets of science for so long, I am fascinated by chemistry
physics, geometry, botany, biology etc.
I study these things because I believe in the concept of a unification
what I mean by that is this, I believe biology
is the logical (though now somewhat closed off) continuation that began with alchemy
in all of these disciplines, it has been our species seeking to define, categorize, and understand the world around us
de-mystifying what previously was seen as the realm of the divine, perhaps to an extent
but I think arrogance (and chauvinism) made of these things less than they could and should be
it has become elitist (actually, I think it always was) and what is worse
is that most of the minds of today are but hollow shadows compared to those that preceded them
why is this? I believe it is because a system meant to exclude is a system that is designed to snuff itself out in perpetuity...but that is my thought.
So, then, if I have such a poor opinion of science and so forth why do I laud it and find it fascinating?
the answer is rather simple, I am hungry for knowledge of all kinds
I am insatiably curious and I believe in experience versus theory
so I tend to muck with things hands on rather than postulate
though there are some things that I think about that are a bit beyond my direct reach
it is one of these subjects that came to my thoughts the other evening as I watched these cosmological talks
and my thought goes something like this:
so, the common conception is that in the beginning there was a void, in which there was an ultra-dense singularity (e.g. a potential) that collapsed upon itself and exploded vis-à-vis the big bang and went through a period of expansion and is now (arguably) continuing to expand. This is the most logical and commonly accepted concept for the beginning of the universe as we know it. However, I believe this begs a question about matter in general and thus births additional questions. For, if everything erupted from this singularity, then there is a mechanism at work that we do not understand and there is a matter state that we do not understand.....because, logically, either the singularity was comprised of all of the different potential types of matter in existence at there absolute base (so we can definitely assume carbon was there and some other base elements that we are aware of) or matter in that state is in some kind of transitional or potential state....meaning it is a blank, it is a potential.....in which case, we are missing the mechanism that determines this "proto-matter's" final form.....how do you go from raw matter with no property to copper or hydrogen?
What I am saying is that somehow out of an exploded potential we have all that we can easily see and observe (and probably much more than that), where did the basis of this matter come from? How is one element defined differently from the next?
Chemistry answers this by an element's properties....things that are measurable, such as weight, density, solvency, apparent mass, etc. But these are observable measurements based in this sphere of reality...since they exist here, and are perceived here, this is valid (to a point)....but I postulate we are not seeing
all that is when we so define a thing. What causes the formation of this or that ore must be more than simply tectonic force or chemical reaction...because, in my mind this points to a mechanical process. And while I think that is also valid, I believe we do not perceive correctly when we look only at one aspect.
This again points to what I have been saying about an algorithmic basis for all things, something that is a process but that is also dynamic (possibly chaotic in nature) reacting to and acting upon both itself and that which is around it. In a vision or whisper, it has been told to me it is "the mirror that sees itself".
as a disclaimer, I have read about the research inherent towards discovery of the "higgs boson" and I think this is additional folly....while we can ever chase down the rabbit-hole in terms of scale, I believe we will not find the bottom....it is a fractal at that point. In order to truly progress forward with thought I propose that we shed these narrowed confines and look around us.....we need to start seeing the interactions and perceptions at this level clearly before we can presume to define anything; in my humble opinion