BOUND BY THE LIMITATIONS OF OUR SENSUAL APPARATUS
______________________________________________________________________

In trying to explain anything about the world/universe, we are limited by our (human) sensual apparatus. We might assume this because it would be a different world/univers if it were described by any other creature.

Every individual creature (of which we humans are only one) has a different sensual apparatus just because we are all different. The fact that we communicate at all is amazing. Obviously we must agree (in some inexplicable way) on some things, otherwise we could not co-exist (which we do with difficulty, anyway).

This sensual apparatus works within a limited range for any given creature, that much is evident from observation, even of humans. We cannot, therefore, make any statements that preclude this observation.

Our human views of the world/universe are therefore bound by the range/s of our ability to sense our surroundings within our 'given' abilities to so sense.

We tend(ed) to believe that the smallest 'particle' was the atom. Then we were able (apparently) to deduce from experiments that the atoms was composed of smaller particles working together and are still working on still smaller particles.

The so-called Higgs boson  is supposed by some to be the most fundamental of fundamental 'particles'. This assumes that the universe is composed of such 'fundamental' particles. This has yet to be proven, of course  and can be understood by a six-year-old.

So, if we find the 'Higgs boson' we will (probably) assume that we have found the most elementary, elementary particle and that's that. We can then build a mathematical (but not real i.e. observable by our senses) model on that and we have The Answer. We still cannot 'see it for real' because our visual acuity is limited more or less to grains of sand in the small and a sky-scaper in the large.

The rest is what we call a concept. A concept is an imaginary view of what might be observed with the eye (or heard with the ear, etc.)

However, the human animal is capable of a degree of contraction and enlargement of the senses. Pretty clever, but is it the 'real' (or directly observable) world or only our 'new' perception of it?

Reality is what an individual perceives with the senses that they were 'given' at birth and what follows thereafter.

Nothing else matters.

If you were not born with a sense of colour nothing will convice you that there is colour in the universe because colour will not matter to you.

If you were born deaf you will never be convinced that there is 'sound' because you can have no concept of it unless some other sense defines it for you.

Microscopes cannot tell us how small something is. Telescopes cannot tell us how large something is. They really do not tell us anything observable with the 'naked eye' as they say.

Everything is an infinitely scaleable continuum.

Within the limitations of our sensual apparatus, we must therefore see that there can be things infinitely smaller than the 'atom' and infinitely larger than the 'universe'. We (as all creatures) are limited to only a certain range within those infinities.

The rest is imagination.

There is no doubt (I would not think but personally know) that we are not affected by things outside our actual range of sensual acuity.

It strikes me that everything in the universe consists of the interaction of edges. This interaction of edges takes place at all scaleable levels, for example, the sea on the grains of sand on the shore.*

An edge is infinite point of interaction with another edge. It is 1-dimensional. It is certainly not an object, because an object must be more that 1 dimension to be an object, by definition.

No matter how good your eyesight is, you can never see a perfect edge. Perfect usually referring to 'straight'. The notion of 'perfect' was, I believe what Plato was referring to when he talked of 'Forms'. Thus, we can only imagine perfection, never actually realise it.

In fact, there are no edges. We perceive edges depending on the scale of each interacting 'object/s'. The closer we get to a perceived edge, the less linear it appears. For example, if I remove my reading glasses, everything looks 'bluured', I can see no edges, everything merges. The seeing of edges is a function of our visual acuity.

The same goes for every one of our senses. We individually define the edges according to our sense acuities. Thus everything in the universe is linked to everything else within the plasma (or as it used to be called, the aether).

The universe is crinkley, not linear.

This is explained by the use of a shore-line. How long is the shore-line of the UK?

It depends entirely on how large or small you are in relation to it. It will also be determined by the measurement/s you use. It is infinitely large or infinitely small depending on your size in relation to it.

*************************************
I cannot believe what I once was told, that the universe is as complicated as it is made out to be. From observations (and history) it is obvious that we are complicating our understanding because we have assumed the universe is complex. Well it may be but its original starting point (if indeed there was one) would have to be simple. What we are doing is not understanding, not taking into account obvious observances, and trying to make the map fit the territory. To quote: From little acorns, mighty oaks do grow. Complex systems evolve and adapt from very simple ones.

The notion behind anything (I am saying) begins with a simple construct. Upon this, we build. One cannot take a complex object (or idea) and hope to explain it in simple terms by breaking it down into smaller and smaller pieces since we cannot know how it was contructed. One must take the simple terms and construct the complex object. A wall is constructed of individual blocks held together with a medium of hold-togetherness. If we deconstruct the wall, we can have no knowledge of how it was built.

I am certainly not a 'mathematician' (whatever that means) but mathematics must be based soley from the notion that 1 + 1 = 2.

As we get more sophisticated (again, whatever that means), we realise that anything less than 1 (whole object) then becomes a fraction or percentage of that whole object. We cannot know how these fractions or percentages make the 1 (whole object).

Once we are in this realm, we realise that you can cut the whole object into an infinite number of pieces and not reach the end, ever.

It is when we get to this stage of thinking that it becomes very difficult to imagine the size of these pieces.

We may take an apple, for example, which we can (mostly) readily view with our ocular faculties, and, with an equally viewable knife (given the corresponding appropriate visual acuity), cut it into two pieces. We can perform this until we cannot cut it any smaller because of the size of the piece, the size of the knife and so forth. We may design a knife that can cut it smaller but at some point we will not be able to see the size we are cutting. What happens then?

We imagine.

Imagination is then limited to our success at using this faculty. None of us are the same. Our acuities differ by the margins offered by fractions, continuity and continua.

*****************************************

GRAVITY

No-one can define gravity to any satisfaction (certainly not any consensus...an agreement by most people). Therefore, I say, why bother? We need some other way of describing whatever it is.

It strikes me that there are two (at least?) forms of centrifugal 'force'. A 'force', of course can be a push mechanism or a pull mechanism, depending where you are within its boundaries (infinitely large or small).

My observation regarding one form of centrifugal force, which mostly everyone can appreciate, is the washing machine on spin. You are inside the drum and the spin throws you outwards from the center. When the drum stops spinning, we return to where we were.

According to the gravity theory, we are on the outside of a sphere (or drum) and the rotation keeps us inwards towards the planet. If the planet stops spinning, we all get thrown outwards. I would like to see an experiment that shows this happening (something observable and not mathematical).

What would happen in an inverted washing machine?

My very early science education led me to believe that there were three 'forces' (undefined):
Strong, electromagnetic, Weak. Good so far.

Strong was the ability of an atom to hold itself together.
Electromagnetic was the next one. I never really understood that one.
Weak was gravity.

We now have a universe that, with all the incalculable distances between any of the bodies in it (stars, planets, galaxies and so forth) is held together by the weakest possible (negative centrifugal) force. How can anyone explain this so that a child can understand?

ELECTRICITY

I believe that no-one can explain electricity. I do not believe we have the sensual acuity to do so. We can (readily) demonstrate certain things about it but it defies wordy explanation.

The same applies to magnetism, gravity and other phenomena. However, we talk as if we do understand. 'Words, words, what are words?' (P.K. Sharpen)

Gravity will never explain the universe. No observations (the more 'sophisticated' we get, the less) match this. We cannot hold explanations of what was once thought as the end result. That is not science, it is biggotry (and vested interests).

Dogmatism is a failure both of science and religion. Belief should not outway science or  religion. Neither are survival mechanisms. This will be the downfall of the creature Man and in a very short time.

More 'sophisticated' explanations can, however, be explained by plasma science. The infinitely scaleable can be reproduced on this planet, and has been accomplished for many years.

Because of scaleability and our limited sensual acuity there is no reason for this to be an end result and neither should it be. But it does offer much more than a mechanistic and mathematical model that does not stand the test of time or observation.

Philosophy is an incredible mind-game but let it rest there.

Whatever you say it is, it isn't and we must remember that when trying to explain anything.

********************************************




*
I wrote this poem over 35 years ago before all my new found data since. What I am saying now, reminds me of it.

INTERSECTION..one

Who knows, where it begins
or where it ends;
that non-existent line
that is each one of us.

So, in saying that,
it follows that these lines cross
and bear upon each other.
at the intersection.

These indefineable lines
start in the infinity
of the Universe,
where Time does not exist.

They are born in us
and cease in us;
when Oneness is born in Death
at the intersection.

There are no words to say
that these lines are thick or thin;
not that they are continuous
or tangible in form.

Yet they do exist;
they flow through us
and join, in an instant,
at the intersection.

Each part of what we are,
is such a line in space;
a constant broadening matrix
through which we ebb and flow.

Yet each line is a purpose,
decided by some Fate;
of which we have no knowledge,
but point at the intersection.

The ships that pass at day's due death,
all travel on that line;
and out meeting with another Self,
create the graph of friends,

And each day that passes,
each bloom that bows to us;
all meet some time or other,
at the intersection.

There is no parallel of lines;
they criss-cross quite by chance;
and such a chance of crossing so
is incomprehensibly large.

Yet in that immeasurable chance,
we find that many lines;
can find each other and meet
at the intersection.







Return to CONTENTS page