We have been discussing the notion of rainbow gravity and how it challenges conventional notions of the Big Bang!
In fact the deeper implications of what is involved here require the recognition that scientific reality properly contains both analytic (quantitative) and qualitative (holistic) aspects, in dynamic relationship with each other.
Therefore conventional scientific understanding is continually limited by the attempt to reduce reality in a merely quantitative impersonal manner (as detached from the observing mind).
So when we allow for both scientific aspects, this allows for the local independence of events (in analytic terms) combined with the universal interdependence of all events (in a holistic manner).
When this is done it leads to a fundamental change in perspective, especially with relation to our understanding of space and time.
Following Newton, space and time were understood in neutral terms as simply constituting a pre-existing background where phenomenal activity takes place.
Then because of Einstein, it was realised that these dimensions have strictly no physical meaning independent of material phenomena.
However Einstein still believed that this relative nature of space and time could be precisely formulated in an objective fashion.
However once we incorporate both the analytic and holistic aspects of scientific understanding an inescapable Uncertainty Principle now attaches to the very nature of space and time.
Put another way, relativity is now seen - not alone physically as applying to the nature of space and time - but equally in psychological terms to the mental constructs we use to understand these very dimensions.
This ultimately entails that every event takes place in a unique framework with respect to both space and time.
Thus from the accepted analytic perspective, each phenomenal object (as scientifically investigated) has a unique location in space and time. And this location is only possible due to all objects sharing a common impersonal identity!
However from the corresponding holistic (qualitative) perspective, each object now assumes a unique qualitative identity, with no means therefore for establishing a local identity (in space and time).
So properly understood, the non local behaviour of quantum particles relates to their holistic rather than analytic aspect!
However this cannot be appreciated within a scientific paradigm that recognises solely the analytic aspect of interpretation!
Thus once again, the deeper conclusion that can be reached here is that the qualitative aspects of phenomena (at both micro and macro levels) entail unique configurations with respect to space and time.
In other words, phenomenal objects now enjoy their unique qualities precisely because they relate to space and time configurations that are themselves unique.
Therefore once again, this truth cannot possibly be approached while we remain confined to the conventional scientific paradigm (based on mere analytic interpretation).
We have been speaking about the rainbow (i.e. in relation to rainbow gravity). In fact the rainbow serves as an excellent example of a phenomenon with both quantitative and qualitative attributes.
The conventional scientist can indeed give a convincing explanation for the rainbow phenomenon (relating to the reflection and refraction of sunlight with respect to water droplets). This explanation therefore appeals primarily to the cognitive function of reason.
However the artistic experience of the rainbow would be somewhat different. Who, for example has not at some stage found oneself rapt in wonder at the beautiful sight of a vibrantly coloured rainbow?
Such an aesthetic appreciation appeals now primarily to the affective function of emotion!
And indeed in the end it is somewhat artificial to attempt to neatly divide both types of experience for they necessarily intermingle with each other to a significant degree.
So the total experience of appreciating a rainbow thereby necessarily combines both reason and emotion in a quantitative and qualitative type manner.
However what we call science, then attempts to represent the experience, as if the quantitative aspect somehow can exist in absolute abstraction from the qualitative.
Thus the crucially important task, which has not yet been addressed, relates to how the qualitative aspect - which necessarily applies to all phenomena - can be successfully incorporated with the quantitative, in a new more comprehensive form of scientific understanding.
Now, I would still accept that this still needs to be achieved in a refined cognitive manner, where the translation of the qualitative aspect is understood in an indirect rational fashion.
However I would firmly believe that the ultimate task of such understanding is to pave the way for the full reconciliation in experience of scientific (rational) and artistic (aesthetic) aspects.
If we go back to the time of the Renaissance, before the specialised development of Newtonian type science, we can witness a much greater integration with respect to both the scientific and artistic quests.
Perhaps this exemplified more than anyone by the life of Leonardo da Vinci who displayed supreme scientific and artistic gifts.
Now it can indeed be argued that science was - certainly in terms of modern developments - still in its infancy at the time. So the specialised development of analytic science was thereby necessary to differentiate it successfully from other activities, subsequently enabling unparalleled progress.
However the cracks in the modern scientific edifice have been long apparent and cannot be solved within the present restricted approach.
Thus we need to rediscover in a much more comprehensive fashion the notion of Holistic Science (relating to the global interdependence of all reality). Then, ultimately both the analytic and holistic aspects can be combined in an ever more creative and productive manner (i.e. Radial Science).
In fact the deeper implications of what is involved here require the recognition that scientific reality properly contains both analytic (quantitative) and qualitative (holistic) aspects, in dynamic relationship with each other.
Therefore conventional scientific understanding is continually limited by the attempt to reduce reality in a merely quantitative impersonal manner (as detached from the observing mind).
So when we allow for both scientific aspects, this allows for the local independence of events (in analytic terms) combined with the universal interdependence of all events (in a holistic manner).
When this is done it leads to a fundamental change in perspective, especially with relation to our understanding of space and time.
Following Newton, space and time were understood in neutral terms as simply constituting a pre-existing background where phenomenal activity takes place.
Then because of Einstein, it was realised that these dimensions have strictly no physical meaning independent of material phenomena.
However Einstein still believed that this relative nature of space and time could be precisely formulated in an objective fashion.
However once we incorporate both the analytic and holistic aspects of scientific understanding an inescapable Uncertainty Principle now attaches to the very nature of space and time.
Put another way, relativity is now seen - not alone physically as applying to the nature of space and time - but equally in psychological terms to the mental constructs we use to understand these very dimensions.
This ultimately entails that every event takes place in a unique framework with respect to both space and time.
Thus from the accepted analytic perspective, each phenomenal object (as scientifically investigated) has a unique location in space and time. And this location is only possible due to all objects sharing a common impersonal identity!
However from the corresponding holistic (qualitative) perspective, each object now assumes a unique qualitative identity, with no means therefore for establishing a local identity (in space and time).
So properly understood, the non local behaviour of quantum particles relates to their holistic rather than analytic aspect!
However this cannot be appreciated within a scientific paradigm that recognises solely the analytic aspect of interpretation!
Thus once again, the deeper conclusion that can be reached here is that the qualitative aspects of phenomena (at both micro and macro levels) entail unique configurations with respect to space and time.
In other words, phenomenal objects now enjoy their unique qualities precisely because they relate to space and time configurations that are themselves unique.
Therefore once again, this truth cannot possibly be approached while we remain confined to the conventional scientific paradigm (based on mere analytic interpretation).
We have been speaking about the rainbow (i.e. in relation to rainbow gravity). In fact the rainbow serves as an excellent example of a phenomenon with both quantitative and qualitative attributes.
The conventional scientist can indeed give a convincing explanation for the rainbow phenomenon (relating to the reflection and refraction of sunlight with respect to water droplets). This explanation therefore appeals primarily to the cognitive function of reason.
However the artistic experience of the rainbow would be somewhat different. Who, for example has not at some stage found oneself rapt in wonder at the beautiful sight of a vibrantly coloured rainbow?
Such an aesthetic appreciation appeals now primarily to the affective function of emotion!
And indeed in the end it is somewhat artificial to attempt to neatly divide both types of experience for they necessarily intermingle with each other to a significant degree.
So the total experience of appreciating a rainbow thereby necessarily combines both reason and emotion in a quantitative and qualitative type manner.
However what we call science, then attempts to represent the experience, as if the quantitative aspect somehow can exist in absolute abstraction from the qualitative.
Thus the crucially important task, which has not yet been addressed, relates to how the qualitative aspect - which necessarily applies to all phenomena - can be successfully incorporated with the quantitative, in a new more comprehensive form of scientific understanding.
Now, I would still accept that this still needs to be achieved in a refined cognitive manner, where the translation of the qualitative aspect is understood in an indirect rational fashion.
However I would firmly believe that the ultimate task of such understanding is to pave the way for the full reconciliation in experience of scientific (rational) and artistic (aesthetic) aspects.
If we go back to the time of the Renaissance, before the specialised development of Newtonian type science, we can witness a much greater integration with respect to both the scientific and artistic quests.
Perhaps this exemplified more than anyone by the life of Leonardo da Vinci who displayed supreme scientific and artistic gifts.
Now it can indeed be argued that science was - certainly in terms of modern developments - still in its infancy at the time. So the specialised development of analytic science was thereby necessary to differentiate it successfully from other activities, subsequently enabling unparalleled progress.
However the cracks in the modern scientific edifice have been long apparent and cannot be solved within the present restricted approach.
Thus we need to rediscover in a much more comprehensive fashion the notion of Holistic Science (relating to the global interdependence of all reality). Then, ultimately both the analytic and holistic aspects can be combined in an ever more creative and productive manner (i.e. Radial Science).
Comments
Post a Comment