Friday, July 29, 2011

Final Theory

I'm sure, if you've talked to me philosophically in the past two or three years, you've heard one of my rants. A popular one to blog about is how the human experience boils down to a dilemma between self-interest, and social obligation.

Chances are, you've heard me talk about semiotics, and the subjectivity of sign systems. How we are unable to communicate absolutes. 

If you've talked to me in the past year, you've probably heard me talk about the natural world, and modes of perception. You have, no doubt, heard me use the sine wave to describe human communication, thought patterns, states of being/mentalities, and others. "It's all about wavelengths".

Yes and no.

I have recently had the experience of observing the natural world in wave form. Never you mind what this entails. I have observed the universal laws of nature in their own right, without sign systems to represent them. I have felt the mathematics of it all, so to speak. 

The thing is, wavelengths are a mathematical interpretation, and therefore a sign system which just will not suffice. In the system of sine waves, we recognize a 0-value. but I'm here to tell you that this theoretical "zero" does not exist in the laws of nature.

Let's say you want to tell me how tall you are. You would probably use imperial units of measure. let's say you are exactly 6 feet tall. These units of measure are a sign system which would, in most instances of human interaction, be determined to have a shared meaning. However, the fact is, that there is no agreement on what constitutes these units of measure.

Well how much is 6 feet? I ask.
It is 72 inches.
How much is an inch? 
It is 0.08333333 ft.
Very well, there is a defined relationship between the two. But what is an inch constituted of? how is an inch broken down?

we would continue in this fashion, down through millimeters, micrometers, nanometers, etc. Until we came arrived at atomic structure.

What is an atom?

Traditionally, an atom is something which cannot be broken down further. But modern science has shown us that the atom is made up of yet smaller particles, therefore, it can be broken down further, by dividing the nucleus into protons and neutrons. These, in turn, may be broken down into units of measure, varieties of quarks. which can also be measured. As it happens, 1 yoctometer, is one/one-hundred thousanth (1/100,000) of the diameter of a proton or neutron. 

But what makes up a yoctometer?

I'm sorry if this whole thing insults your intelligence, the point is, our arbitrary sign systems can continue to come up with signs to represent the size of something, but on an infinitesimal scale, there is no way to ever quantify the universe, as every quantification would have to be qualified with a unit of measure, and so on.

How is it relevant? Is it truly necessary to measure beyond the cells of the human body? In this mortal realm, isn't what determines everything else we know or do, based upon the question 'is it alive or dead?" If it is alive, then all is well. And if it is dead, then 'well' becomes irrelevant to the deceased. In this case, shouldn't we need only consider the individual himself? living or dead? 

Let's see. What does the word "individual" mean? The root isn't that hard to sniff out, it's related to the theory of atomos, or atoms. It is indivisible. incapable of being divided. since we know that you and I are capable of being divided into smaller parts, then we know that we are not individuals. Then who are we? Are we the sum of our collective, infinitesimal matter? but what is that matter? what about beyond that? If we cannot conceive of the infinite measure of "matter", then should it matter?

Does it matter so much that the Hadron Collider is a danger to our existence? Maybe. What if we understood the universe completely? Is it possible to do with science? A system which operates on classification and measurment? In this paradox, even the quantum realm is given limits. A finite system attempting to explain infinity.

I believe that the true nature of the universe is something that cannot be discovered with microscopes. Nor can it be explained "a man in the sky created it" simply because it is a claim as unknowable as infinity. No, there is definitely more to be discovered than what constitutes a hadron particle, or what constitutes that which constitutes a hadron particle. If mankind were truly designed by a god, we would possess the ability to comprehend that god. If we we comprehended god, then we would understand what god is made up of. And what gave him the capacity to design the universe. If god created the universe, then he created the laws on which it functions, and if he created the laws on which it functions, then he must understand them completely. But then again, he would have to understand the ability of his own existence prior to that of the universe. What you end up with is infinite regress. Unless that paradox is resolved, you and I are every bit as capable as any god, which isn't much at all. 

Signs fail. measurement is a system of signs. If you want to understand it, try not "measuring" it at all.

No comments: