Complexity – a patchwork quilt of misunderstanding and confusion tied together ‘by hook or by crook’.
Complex systems are the result of our collective blindness to the simple interconnectedness of our universe.
Why is the emerging view of our universe – no longer a Cosmological and Cosmogonic garden of the good, true and beautiful – now turning into this phantasm of complexity?
Where did we go wrong?
Was it the creation and maintaining of the expectation that we could comprehend and grasp the whole of our Cosmos within one perspective?
Were the applications of the science we created so profit bearing that we began to take more than our fare share?
Was it the tempo at which our scientists – not even slowed down by the ethical and moral considerations which constitute our navigation systems down the roads of evolution – that have brought us to this place much too soon and with so much needless suffering (for animals and humans)?
Are we to continue abandoning our organic (and real) ascendancy for artificial (and synthetic) correlates?
The ends are NOT justified by their means! They are determined by them.
Hiroki Sayama, D.Sc. – Created by Hiroki Sayama, D.Sc., Collective Dynamics of Complex Systems (CoCo) Research Group at Binghamton University, State University of New York
By Brian Castellani (Own work) [CC BY-SA 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)%5D, via Wikimedia Commons
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…)
This is an example of what I referred to earlier in some of my posts. This one is about probabilistic programming. Our government is spending our money on research that isn’t even capable of achieving the goals it sets for itself.
They may be able to create semi-intelligent drones with this kind of research, but they will never achieve their aim of intelligent machines.