historical containment

What is the universe ultimately made of? Throughout history (Western history, in particular), thinkers have generally answered this question in one of two ways: (1) “Fluid” or (2) “Solid.”

For example, a group of ancient Greek philosophers comprised the “fluid” field: Thales (624-548 BC), Anaximenes (585-525 BC), and Heraclitus (544-483 BC). In contrast, a second group comprised the “solid” camp: Leucippus (early 5th century BCE) and Democritus (ca. 460-370 BCE). I say “solid field” because Leucippus and Democritus were two of the first great thinkers to conceive of atoms, and atoms are generally thought of as tiny solid spheres.

Many people know that the idea of ​​atomic particles came from ancient Greece, but many people don’t realize that the idea of ​​fluidity was also part of this same culture. In words attributed to Thales, “… the fire of the sun and the stars themselves, and the entire cosmos, are nourished by the exhalations of water.” While Thales favored water, Anaximenes favored air, and Heraclitus favored fire.

Water, air, and fire, of course, are correctly classified as fluids.

The solid idea, however, appears to have triumphed, establishing the fundamental conceptual foundation for modern physics. Now, with an ever-growing zoo of new particles, modern physics has continued to build on this ancient atomic concept to the point of apparent self-contradiction.

quantum riddle

Quantum physics (a hugely successful branch of modern physics) therefore appears to have come to a split decision, revealing a universe that sometimes acts as if particles are fundamental, and at other times acts as if waves are fundamental. . Quantum physics’ solution to this puzzle has actually been to deny both and free physicists from making any definitive claims about what reality might be.

Today’s practicing physicists do not, in fact, bother with questions about ultimate reality. Rather, their collective job is to calculate the statistical probabilities of certain events happening with a precision that allows humans to invent better technology. Practicing physicists today simply seem too wrapped up in the enormous success of the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics to risk claiming that their mathematics could actually model anything objectively real. However, in order to function in the everyday world, these same physicists allude to a reality of which they and their calculations are somehow part.

Even without strict empirical proof, of the caliber required by the latest mathematical formalism, modern physicists nevertheless seem to operate in society with the same faith as most others: a faith that recognizes objective reality and apparent fact. that we are all in some way aspects of it.

liquid logic

While orthodox scientists argue that objective reality on very small scales does not exist, nonorthodox thinkers argue that human beings surely can We talk about “reality” on this scale, and we can do so in the context of science proper.

If the history of science had gone another way, the concept of a malleable liquid might have trumped the concept of rigid granules. Preferred styles of thinking in physics might have adopted the organism concept over the mechanism concept. Other key ideas could have dominated as well:

• cell, not atom
• movement, not force
• peak, not particle
• flexible membrane, non-hardened layer
• interface, not barrier
• harmonic resonance, not quantum leap
• fluid ether, not solid ether.

Perhaps the original spirit of physics – to make the world more understandable – would have reached new heights, instead of receding into the shadows of empirical dogma.

science for the senses

While some people might argue that good science is primarily concerned with the mind, I would argue that excellent science also deals with emotions. Although science requires a special kind of discipline, its special methods still hold the potential for exceptional creativity. Science inevitably originates in the minds of physical human bodies that are capable of measurement by means other than practical calculations.

The rigor of science, thus, has room for the vigor of the senses.

I propose that human sensory perceptions and the amplification of human sensory perceptions through measurement devices be adjusted in terms of resonant harmonics.

To record remarkable responses or measurements, observers or instruments must find intensity thresholds within the energies that interact in a situation. These intensity thresholds within the energies that interact in a situation are peaks. These peaks appear to be distinct occurrences with no measurable gradations in between. Now consider that the measurements themselves can be critically dependent on such peaks, where it is not even possible to make measurements between such peaks.

What I am suggesting is that reality is ultimately a body of liquid energy that interacts to certain extents (depending on critical thresholds) to reveal the responses humans perceive. A measuring machine therefore cannot click, and an observer cannot observe until there is a strong enough interaction between the various energies that interact in a complete system.

If we represent the whole universe in terms of parts (that is, systems and subsystems of parts), then we should not be surprised to find that we can only measure parts of the total energy of the universe, because measurement itself ultimately prohibits perceiving the continuity of energy. an ultimate whole. If, on the other hand, we start with the idea of ​​a whole, then perhaps our scientific creativity could lead us in a direction that resonates with this uniquely human view of things. A sensual new era in science could then be on the horizon.

© 2011 Robert G. Kernodle