Strictly Speaking Can’t! Natural Language Won’t?
Physics is only complex, because it’s in someone’s interest to have it that way. The way to understanding, even if you don’t understand science, was paved with words. Even if those words led only to a symbolic form of understanding.
I’m a mathematician and can tell you that common ordinary language is quite capable of explaining physics. Mathematics is simply more precise than common language. It pays the price for that precision by being subservient to the causal and compositional relations. These are limitations that metaphysics and philosophy do not have.
Words in language have a structure that mathematics alone will never see as it looks for their structure and dynamics in the wrong places and in the wrong ways. Pure mathematics lacks an underlying expression of inherent purpose in its ‘tool set’.
With natural language we are even able to cross the ‘event horizon’ into interiority (where unity makes its journey through the non-dual into the causal realm). It is a place where mathematics may also ‘visit’ and investigate, but only with some metaphysical foundation to navigate with. The ‘landscape’ is very different there… where even time and space ‘behave’ (manifest) differently. Yet common language can take us there! Why? It’s made of the ‘right stuff’!
The monological gaze with its incipient ontological foundation, as found in pure mathematics, is too myopic. That’s why languages such as category theory, although subtle and general in nature, even lose their way. They can tell us how we got there, but none can tell us why we wanted to get there in the first place!
It’s easy to expose modern corporate science’s (mainstream) limitations with this limited tool set – you need simply ask questions like: “What in my methodology inherently expresses why am I looking in here?” (what purpose) or “What assumptions am I making that I’m not even aware of?” or “Why does it choose to do that? and you’re already there where ontology falls flat on its face.
Even questions like these are met with disdain, intolerance and ridicule (the shadow knows it can’t see and wills to banish what it cannot)! And that’s where science begins to resemble religion (psyence).
Those are also some of the reasons why philosophers and philosophy have almost disappeared from the mainstream. I’ll give you a few philosophical hints to pique your interest.
Why do they call it Chaos Theory and not Cosmos Theory?
Why coincidence and not synchronicity?
Why entropy and not centropy?
…
Why particle and not field?
(many more examples…)
Reductionism par Excellence
Quick! I need my street address! In which universe do I look?
If I look in the one I think I’m in I could be wrong, because I just made a decision on which one to look at! 😦
The good ol’ bunk-o-meter pegged full on this one!
We reduce possibility to predictability (and justifiability) and don’t even notice the change!
Good News! It’s Not Just Particles! It’s Properties and Patterns of Particles! – Max Tegmark
“Consciousness is a mathematical pattern.”
Is it possible to explain the phenomenon of purpose away with another phenomenon of emergence?
I wonder how he defines purpose itself?
Isn’t consciousness more than our senses?
Why are we only looking at states of matter and leave out stages, lines, levels, types,…?
Who is doing the “feeling” he’s describing?
Who gives the particles their work to do?
How are the particles different between dead and living beings?
So we are to replace our questions with a certainty of the phenomenon of consciousness and then explain that in terms of an interpretation of same?
I’m not a religious person, but the video is starting to sound like I should be one!
Is this what we get when a physicist tries to do philosophy? Oh my!
Self-referential Paradoxum In Knowledge Representation
What do these two pictures share in common?
They represent structure and dynamics (continuity, connectedness, and boundary [of which topology is only ONE example!]) distributed over multiple and partial dimension. That’s why they interest me and are of use. I use them to represent knowledge, because they are found in our knowledge!
They always have a concealed twist (internal dynamics). You need to leave our 3D rational domain to capture their meaning though. I’ve studied these shapes for a long time now and use them in my work. Break the figures or logic apart and notice how you can tuck the parts into a cloud shape (ambiguity) and make the systems work.
Fractals – They Are Like Reading Novels
They Are Like Reading Novels – One Must Simply Know How To ‘Look’
Meaning is everywhere… even in these seemingly ‘random’ complex domains.
There is no coincidence without meaning!
Please do stay tuned!
Real Knowledge Is Not Bound To Our Conceptions
AI (Artificial Intelligence) may be easier, but OI (Organic Intelligence) is more comprehensive.
http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/07/04/reality-experience-morphic-fields-power-choice-2/
Muster all of your courage to break loose from conventional wisdom on knowledge and you will be open to new potential that just may, if you are diligent, bring you to the ‘promised land’.
Don’t take the word of an outsider (outlier) like me. Simply open your mind to other possibilities.
“And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear their music.” – Friedrich Nietzsche
Organic Intelligence(OI):
‘Music’ our technology is trying to replace instead of understand.
Fractals – Varied Dimension Over a Complex Domain
(click picture to show the article)
Former laser physicist turned artist, Tom Beddard, has created these incredible fractal models. They are ‘truly fractal’, because you can see more and more detail, the closer you peer down onto the surface.
Heurist.me (Carey G. Butler) 