It may, or may not, already be obvious here that my take on cosmology actually automatically implies that a singularity is not necessarily an instant of infinite mass, that then instantly translates into an ongoing expansion of what and when. What it could also be, in this context, is simply a singular set of framing rules by which what and when can then utilize the always present, and never itself ultimately objectifiable, unbounded thing of infinite potential. That thing, as the ultimate of elemental intents, that has to be that which is, was, and always will be; something that has to be assumed for any kind of system of systems; a starting point that needs no other starting considerations. It is what it is and always has; at least as far as we can know now, and until a better way of looking at this comes a long.
The really interesting question for me then is what should happen to one's assumptions concerning a particular vector of experience association if, instead of a certain concept of a bunch of mass being translated to start things off, we started off instead with just rules, much as Stephen Wolfram has suggested, that make use of this "infinite potential?"
The first question that jumps to my mind is how you then make any conclusions as to how much mass can a reality have; especially as it relates to starting out (I know you can make extrapolations of what you observe, but you have to remember that what you are observing is either already hundreds of millions, if not billions, of years old, as well as fact that the baseline of your observations are both physically, and temporally limited). Then, as it works its iterations of ever endless interactions it really starts to cook things up; bouncing around, sometimes banging together, other times just slowly aggregating. Being able to do new interactions precisely because of new aggregates. And then those interactions creating even more complex, aggregated structures still. The governing principle, though, is that "energy can neither be created, nor destroyed," and mass and energy are just two sides of the same coin. So there has to be something that is fixed to keep the mass/energy thing balanced, doesn't there?
Or is that just a formulation bias because we were made inside a system where the mass/energy balance thing was just another of our, as it turns out quite lucky, way of doing things here; and of all of our many quantum branching variations. Perhaps. Perhaps not.
Then there is this notion that we, as sentients, are also fundamental to this process because choice, and meaning, must have processors that can make the choice. Then it logically strikes you, even if it has to cross metaphorical boundaries, that balancing mass and energy, at the largest scales, is not so different than balancing the intents of our other two main elementals, in our own, much more closely scaled concerns, trying to work together as our own special kind of aggregate. Then you throw in the fact that we can imagine far more than what our system's "rules" might allow for, but if things didn't have a way of grasping beyond their reach, so to speak, how does new structure always create ever more complex ways of conceiving new structure; which, with enough power in belief, and self suggestion, we find a way to bring into being. Because, if nothing else, ideas are structures too, and they also possess great power. And we also know that the entirety is semi permeable, so that information leaks across every boundary; always. And we are dealing with infinite potential remember.
What then?
Are we, as sentients, also, at least one key, to the idea of "wormholes" as well? Something about us being able to be sensitive transceivers?
String Theory is involved here too but I have been very reluctant to say anything about it because my ignorance there is even greater than it is for "standard" physics now (which is also another reason why you should always take everything I say with great scepticism). Maybe these vectors of association we call reality are the strings. I don't know, but it is certainly interesting to speculate on.
Just something more to think about. Which of course, I am compelled to do now. You don't need to be so crazy about it certainly. That's what us trained crazy people are here for. But I do think it likely that you ought to be doing more than you are. Remember. The more meaning you find for your perspective, the more perspective your meaning will have. And that becomes a kind of reciprocating engine. Or it certainly could be. Another discipline, like empathy itself, where you need a bit of help from both sides, to keep the peace, and balance, between both sides. Like physical exercise, it is not easy. It is, though, well worth the effort. It has literally, and metaphorically, made me what I am. That and a lot of collateral damage mind you, but they all had their part to play. And as it has happened, I think I, and all of the other stuff, cooked up a pretty good version of me. At least that's the way it feels as I try to share what I am across as many boundaries as I can. And as I always say. Time will tell.
No comments:
Post a Comment