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