We hear a lot these days in scientific circles regarding the search for a TOE (Theory of Everything). For example some people that developments with respect to String Theory could lead to a TOE (possibly in the near future).
Personally I believe that such optimistic views are quite unfounded and that a TOE within the accepted confines of Conventional Science is simply not tenable.
Current science is still of a highly reduced nature.
Once again I will place this in the context of my own approach. Potentially, we can identify an infinite number of qualitatively different dimensions of understanding. Each corresponds to a unique holistic interpretation of number through which reality can be validly interpreted. However, Conventional Science uses just one of these dimensions i.e. the 1st corresponding to linear rational understanding.
As we have seen this default linear model of interpretation is not able to preserve the qualitative distinctions pertaining to the key polarities that necessarily underline all scientific understanding.
For example all knowledge of reality involves a dynamic relationship between the (subjective) knower and the (objective) known. Conventional science can only accommodate such a relationship either by effectively ignoring the subjective component altogether or alternatively reducing it in merely objective terms.
As we have seen the solution to this problem requires the recognition of complementary - as opposed to merely separate polarities - ultimately leading to the need for an alternative type of circular logic.
Secondly all knowledge of reality involves a dynamic relationship as between whole and part. (The psychological counterpart of this is the need for both perceptions and concepts). Once again Conventional Science can only deal with this relationship through effectively reducing - in any context - the whole to the part. Indeed, strictly speaking this very problem lies at the root of all mathematical proof!
However in truth the whole is qualitatively distinct from the part. Recognition of this fact requires incorporating imaginary as well as real rational notions. In effect this requires that both conscious and unconscious aspects of understanding be formally recognised in interpretation leading to - what I refer to as - the complex rational approach.
Finally all knowledge entails a dynamic relationship - in the most fundamental manner - as between form and emptiness. Again Conventional Science can only deal with such a relationship through effectively reducing - in any context - emptiness to form in the mistaken view that somehow spiritual type awareness can be screened out of scientific interpretation.
Though the spirit cannot be directly interpreted in a phenomenal manner, indirectly more subtle ways of rational interpretation are indeed available to better accommodate the relationship as between form and emptiness. In my own approach this is achieved at the level of 8-dimensional interpretation.
Of course I do not deny the continuing great value of Conventional Science and the enormous contribution that it has made. However I think that it is still perfectly valid to attempt to place it in a significantly wider context. This points clearly to its key strength and limitations while equally opening up entirely new perspectives for valid scientific enquiry. And, make no mistake, this will indeed be more clearly recognised in future.
So an acceptable scientific TOE is not - I believe - possible with the present understanding of science.
However I do believe - that in a certain qualified sense - a TOE is indeed possible within the integral scientific approach (which I am outlining in these contributions).
Personally I believe that such optimistic views are quite unfounded and that a TOE within the accepted confines of Conventional Science is simply not tenable.
Current science is still of a highly reduced nature.
Once again I will place this in the context of my own approach. Potentially, we can identify an infinite number of qualitatively different dimensions of understanding. Each corresponds to a unique holistic interpretation of number through which reality can be validly interpreted. However, Conventional Science uses just one of these dimensions i.e. the 1st corresponding to linear rational understanding.
As we have seen this default linear model of interpretation is not able to preserve the qualitative distinctions pertaining to the key polarities that necessarily underline all scientific understanding.
For example all knowledge of reality involves a dynamic relationship between the (subjective) knower and the (objective) known. Conventional science can only accommodate such a relationship either by effectively ignoring the subjective component altogether or alternatively reducing it in merely objective terms.
As we have seen the solution to this problem requires the recognition of complementary - as opposed to merely separate polarities - ultimately leading to the need for an alternative type of circular logic.
Secondly all knowledge of reality involves a dynamic relationship as between whole and part. (The psychological counterpart of this is the need for both perceptions and concepts). Once again Conventional Science can only deal with this relationship through effectively reducing - in any context - the whole to the part. Indeed, strictly speaking this very problem lies at the root of all mathematical proof!
However in truth the whole is qualitatively distinct from the part. Recognition of this fact requires incorporating imaginary as well as real rational notions. In effect this requires that both conscious and unconscious aspects of understanding be formally recognised in interpretation leading to - what I refer to as - the complex rational approach.
Finally all knowledge entails a dynamic relationship - in the most fundamental manner - as between form and emptiness. Again Conventional Science can only deal with such a relationship through effectively reducing - in any context - emptiness to form in the mistaken view that somehow spiritual type awareness can be screened out of scientific interpretation.
Though the spirit cannot be directly interpreted in a phenomenal manner, indirectly more subtle ways of rational interpretation are indeed available to better accommodate the relationship as between form and emptiness. In my own approach this is achieved at the level of 8-dimensional interpretation.
Of course I do not deny the continuing great value of Conventional Science and the enormous contribution that it has made. However I think that it is still perfectly valid to attempt to place it in a significantly wider context. This points clearly to its key strength and limitations while equally opening up entirely new perspectives for valid scientific enquiry. And, make no mistake, this will indeed be more clearly recognised in future.
So an acceptable scientific TOE is not - I believe - possible with the present understanding of science.
However I do believe - that in a certain qualified sense - a TOE is indeed possible within the integral scientific approach (which I am outlining in these contributions).
Comments
Post a Comment