Thursday, 14 August 2008

TOWARDS INFINITY...(A Post In Which Dreamy Baby Can Be Seen To Make A Long-Distance Phone Call)


Evolutions have surprisingly simple origins.

Nor is it difficult to trace the stages whereby the universe and its cosmic processes evolved from the mechanistic view of the eighteenth into the
electromagnetic perspectives of the late nineteenth century. At that time, the atom, doubtless, looked rather innocuous. Indeed, the consensus of scientists in 1930 still was that matter was made up of two elementary particles: electrons and protons. In the blink of an eye , however, that consensus was called into question. What happened was that Paul Dirac published his relativistic wave equations for the electron. It confounded all attempts to quantify the atom. The next important step came with the positron discovery of 2 August 1932. It was a
moment of high drama. Once the validation of Dirac’s theory had appeared, the composite result was the total abolition of the hypothesis of simple protons and negative electrons. “Physics as we know it,” Max Born is reported to have said, “will be over in six months.”

And yet, it was one of the contradictions of the search for a single
unified field theory that, in an atmosphere thus charged, progress would be
inflationary, pointing towards ever increasing complexity. For the next seventy
years scientists set about ransacking space, time and circumstances, forcing
back the conceptual horizons of cosmological thought and achieving multiplicity
and particle variegation rather than the unification of forces which, after all,
had been the principal concern of modern theoretical physicists ever since.

One may of course insist that the relevant sciences have yet to be
born, that methods have not matured, that the inaugural utopian purpose of
solving the riddle of creation is probably as far removed from fulfilment as
ever. And yet, it may not be fanciful to say that the very science of modern
physics has been evolved out of this utopian speculation. Indeed, one could
already make a tolerable case for physic’s ongoing attempt to ground the
universe in mathematics or, beyond the limit of acceptable physical enquiry, to
propose “something that is neither subject nor object“.

But we can distinguish only by observation and, as Plato blandly but
accurately remarked, an object of perception contains both substance and form.
On the other hand, no physicist of the last fifty years is likely to be too
dogmatic about this. At very high energies all forces are predicted to
assimilate: the strong interactions are unified with the weak and composite
atomic nuclei would cease to exist. At 1016 degrees, it is
worth noting, the weak nuclear force would exhibit the same enduring
characteristics as the electromagnetic force. There is no point in adding to the
effusion of expert commentary on the supposed implications of the Big Bang. No
prediction yet made has revealed any reason for suspecting that the subjective
concepts of time and extension would not also come to an end. Indeed, the
absence of any concept at all is especially noticeable. Nor is it to be supposed
that any unified theory we might evolve was related to our own sense of identity
or to our perception of empirical measurement.

The finite cannot grasp the infinite. In the struggle towards
wholeness, towards the Original Unity, it must first dissolve and eliminate
itself. To suppose, therefore, that the universe is some nameless, unilateral
entity which can be grasped or comprehended in dissociation from the manifold
forms in which life and intelligence reveal themselves, is to express a meaning
unknown to life and to intelligence itself.








Dreamy


15 comments:

Mu Tai Dong said...

Are you like the fat lesbian type maybe? I knoe about directions of travel.. semi ... semi..

mutleythedog said...

I think I may give up reading this blog as I cant say anything at all....

Selena Dreamy said...

...well, you were supposed to read the previous one, Mutley!

Selena Dreamy said...

"Are you like the fat lesbian type..."

None of me corresponded to the actual lesbian type, if the test of that is either being fat or physical consummation.

Should you, however refer to a dynamic female whose casual attitude to science is newly and desturbingly male, then I would have to say that 65% of my output is either gay or lesbian...

Jonathan said...

Is there a common source for these saucy pictures? I wonder if I may like to peruse it as I find them all rather charming.

Good post. To me in these realms you can be a lively educator, as well as a stimlulator to reflection. I sense an improvement (ok, my criterea) in your writing in the last months and a clearer directness about what you really want to say. What do you think? Not that you were bad to begin with! (what a devil is implication!).

Sometimes I wonder if you could still use a few more shorter sentences to break up and lubricate the rhythm, given the intensity of your content. Just some arbitrary, gratuitous thoughts. But to me you become ever leaner and directer.

'One may of course insist that the relevant sciences have yet to be
born, that methods have not matured, that the inaugural utopian purpose of
solving the riddle of creation is probably as far removed from fulfilment as
ever.'

Well put if I may say. Which is why to me the current methods of science are fine insofar as they restrict themselves to what they clearly thrive at - allowing us to get, sans miraculous powers, the upperhand over matter in functionally useful ways; and yet prove out of their depth when they seek cosmic understanding.

It is a bit as if we presume that the so called 'riddle of creation' set itself up before we invented these methods to be solved only by these methods. Rather the methods only allow the finite mind to do what the finite mind can with finitude...which is alot, I grant, but not everything, and even less with infinitude.

'The finite cannot grasp the infinite.'

Too right. But does this necessarily also mean that the finite cannot be met by, encounter and experience the infinite? Grasp to me suggests ratiocination for the purposes of knowledge system construction. It is for me but one part of what we are and do, namely the mind. Important for sure, but not all that we are.

Greetings from leafiest Suffolk Selena.

Selena Dreamy said...

“Which is why to me the current methods of science are fine insofar as they restrict themselves to what they clearly thrive at - allowing us to get, sans miraculous powers, the upperhand over matter in functionally useful ways; and yet prove out of their depth when they seek cosmic understanding....”

...the fulfilment of such an undertaking as getting “the upper hand over matter“, is not, of course, a mere scientific issue, nor the work of a moment. A sense of cosmic enterprise and the prospect of a plurality of potential futures belongs to a surpassing and forward-looking sense of destiny, precisely - as far as the record shows - where the intellectual pride of man would most wish to deploy it.

To me, at least, science makes obvious the fact that no other development would be more fitting to men’s superior conception of themselves. I cannot go here into these developments as fully as I should like to, since they will be discussed in subsequent posts, but enough has been said in preceding instalments to show that already across the world - in research laboratories and scientific institutions - a race of “Supermen” is gradually evolving; a race, I am convinced, that can see visions, read riddles, dream dreams, talk to the stars, and even - and it would be disingenuous to avoid the subject - communicate with higher beings...

...and thank you for stylistic suggestions, Jonathan, so much appreciated.

Dreamy

Jonathan said...

'but enough has been said in preceding instalments to show that already across the world - in research laboratories and scientific institutions - a race of “Supermen” is gradually evolving; a race, I am convinced, that can see visions, read riddles, dream dreams, talk to the stars, and even - and it would be disingenuous to avoid the subject - communicate with higher beings...'

Are you suggesting that such higher types can only be spawned by an involvement in formal science and its processes?

Men have always tried to be better and grander than they are. Their Promethean endeavours to become supermen, or to 'reach God', or to 'be God', to storm heaven etc, etc, blah, blah, though laudable in their intentions regarding the desire to be better and stronger than they have been (and even to escape mortality), fail, I think, because of a lack of balance and self-awareness of humanity's place in the universe, and the true nature of their actually now reigning finitude.

I do believe eternity and infinity is our destiny, that we shall become divine. But alas it cannot be on our own mistaken terms..or as it were, on terms that do not work. My opinion anyway.

If I might return to Genesis 3. God didn't mind Adam becoming divine (why else would the Tree of Life have been there in the Garden?)...it was the notion of his and Eve's becoming immortal and like a God after learning about the divisive dualism that is Good and Evil that was the problem, as I see it.

Hope you have a great Saturday night whatever it is you do at such times. It may be the village local for me again.

mutleythedog said...

I think you prefer Johnathan to me as he keeps making long comments and is really clever,

To my plus I have always preferred political philosophy as I like to see ideas in action. I have some cheap white wine and 20 Mayfair as well as e-smuggled footage from Georgia of Russians arming an SS21 rocket launcher pointing at Tbilisi... the Archduke moment looms...

Jonathan said...

Ideas in action...ah yes Mutleydog, if only. You are aware of the modern state of non-ideological play in politics?

The line of Marx I do love is when he says that philosphers should want not to understand the world but to change it.

But the problem is you can change the world in all kinds of worse ways, change not necessarily being for the better.

I reckon Selena's heart is broad and vast and deep, that it could accommodate us both. Though you'd need to ask her this, I guess.

Not that I presume at all to be a resident of her heart of course, this being your suggestion.

If I could be briefer I would be, but I fear not including relevant detail, you see.

Selena Dreamy said...

“I have always preferred political philosophy as I like to see ideas in action.”

Fine, Mutley!

Then please tell me why grimy, inveterate shop-steward type socialists never have a problem collecting thumping big Westminster perks and salaries, accepting rent-free apartments and a guaranteed seat in the House of Lords?

Or is it not, my dear Mutley, the bizarre contradiction between their rabid socialism and their corrupt readiness to renege on its principles that makes active socialism so complex and intriguing?

Crushed said...

I have posted on this, a month or so ago, most recently.

The problem is actually discussed by Kant, and rests in the fact that mathematics, in reality, is an empirical sceince, not in fact, neccasrily an absolute truth.

The reality is there must be an end number, and the relationship of all quantities to eachother, is in fact related to what the ultimate quantity is.

The reality is, infinity is not a property of the universe, but it must logically be a propery of primary relaity, where time and space do not exist, where are everything is both eternal and simultaneous, where everything is unbounded, yet takes place in zero dimensions.

percy stilton said...

Nature is a deep imitator. And as man is the prince of organisms he is the master of adaptations. He is the artist of suggestions. He himself is his principal work of art.
What miracle! What triumph! Also , What a disaster!

Selena Dreamy said...

"The reality is, infinity is not a property of the universe, but it must logically be a propery of primary relaity, where time and space do not exist, where are everything is both eternal and simultaneous, where everything is unbounded, yet takes place in zero dimensions..."

... and where the "Minimum is the Maximum!"

Thank you for that, Crushed (and thank you,too, if you will, for reading my forthcoming post of that title)!

mutleythedog said...

Really!

How is that a question for me? I am not a socialist - grubby or otherwise - and I have never been tempted by the idea of standing for Parliament - though I do know many MPs - all Conservatives. Indeed I join you is despising the 'to the manor born' style of such lefties as Diane Abbot and her ilk with their love of private schools for themselves and comprehensives for everyone else, for example. Hypocritical obnoxious and so on.. I am with you an all this..

Jonathan said...

I suppose the source of the problem for the left might lie ultimately in the concept of the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' (which I believe was Marx's originally). In it, at least in its later application, lies the presumption that ordinary folk will not be able to regulate their own affairs once the capitalists have been shrugged off.

It gives ideological justification for a new ruling class for the left, even if in itself it does not mandate either Stalin's or the modern left's differing abuses of their status. What ensures that abuse is human nature unrestrained by a metaphysical conscience that is commonly, if not always, denied by the left.

Isnt it the way that so many who have sought to speak 'from above' for the working class ultimately dont trust them....funny in a way.