God

Where, might you ask, do I stand on the existence of God?

 I ask back:  Does a businessman accept that any system can be managed effectively by both top down and bottom up leadership and organization?

 I believe in both.

 The bottom up is, perhaps, the natural selection way relationships or boundaries have of creating more complex languages and systems (the self-organizing of random systems).

 As scientists, if we can get our minds around that, why is it so hard to see that the universe can be seen as though organized on grand principles from above? We have mathematical equations to represent such principles, those of which we can perceive. So why the great leap required to believe in metaknowledge from above, at the moment, and perhaps for always, beyond our grasp or understanding?

 Why cannot people see that the existence of one perspective must necessarily suggest, or even enforce, the existence of the other, just like the concave and convex perspectives that go into the relationship between fluids—that which we call a meniscus?

 For physical survival and health, bodies need to have both proof from the world of science and they also need faith.  One does not negate the other.

 Failure to Thrive: Seeing a thin and hungry toddler reaching from her orphanage crib, we might think all she needs is food, but she will die without nourishment in the forms of both food and love [see a discussion of the explicit/implicit spectrum].

WIBWI, or What Is Behind What Is

At this point in my thought experiment (September 2016), I am more convinced than ever that we cannot know what is implied by the very nature of the Implicate Order (David Bohm). Form and function only enter the arena of thought when something exists. And nothing exists without change and resulting relationship. But relationships are not slam dunk. They do not all exist for the sampler in the here and now where the sample is taken. Distance and resulting space enters when the observer, in order to form a relationship, in order to sample the other, must devise some way to minimize the space through POV.

There are ways to minimize space and time between the observer and what they want to sample by changing POV. Expanding space means that as our universe winds down in entropic decay, the observer must get more inventive in minimizing experimental space and time, by inventing new experimental setups (inventions) and POVs to bring their samples and relationships into the here and now.

I would be remiss if I continued to believe that actual pathways in the WIBWI exist. But, perhaps, the Explicit as it forms educates the Implicit (WIBWI) that there are statistically likely pathways to relationship. As our universe winds down in entropy decay, so, perhaps, does the number of pathways to relationship/existence [Eventually there may be a point in time where an expanding boundary ceases to change its shape, its fractal dimension, where the midrange slope of the fractal dimension goes to zero (and along with it both form and function)).

 

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: