Perspective: Function and Form

My parents decided not to expect me to join a temple or church. They admitted they didn’t know anything definitive about God and The Universe. Some of the last things they said to me (before they died) suggested that they hadn’t found their truth about the ultimate. They asked me then what I had found out in the life-long search they sent me on. At the time, I was still on my path to discover, or develop, my theory of all the different ways the universe might operate.

When I say, “how the universe operates” what I mean is how can I explain how the universe operates. To explain, I need the best language I can find. I need to understand how one language relates to other forms of description, or how description relates to the thing I’m describing.

It is obvious to most people that the explicit word “love” is not the implicit response, the love we feel emotionally; it only describes it.

The crux of our religions and theories about the world happens when we seek to show how conscious awareness can span death. That is like scientifically trying to prove that form does not create function, since function is seen to emanate from an ordered form. But when the form becomes disordered, then how can conscious awareness (the function) outlive the deterioration of the brain (the form)?

Many religions suggest that function can generate form. The Theosophical Society has been around since 1875. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosophical_Society#History]

The idea of the society is that form emanates from function (the explicit (explained or described)) comes from something that is implied. Since function is a product of something that is implied within the universe, that we may never be able to talk about or explain (make explicit), we can take function as being closer to the implicit nature of our universe and, thereby, closer to our idea of universal reality.

[There is a way to specify both form and function, and, in another post, I will explain how this is done using a nondimensional number much like the fractal dimension of the system’s relationship boundary.]

As a scientific generalist, I could only get my brain around theosophy by joining a group of other scientifically literate people who were attempting to understand how universal behaviors pointed to the forms those behaviors took.

In my published research, I look at a two-dimensional droplet in a thin mold that I pump fluid into. At first, when the expanding droplet is very small (has a small radius) it looks perfectly circular. In fact, even though researchers before me knew that eventually the droplet as it expanded would change its shape, they were not aware of how that unstable condition on the circular boundary started.

This is important. Those researchers, including me, saw a circular droplet boundary because we did not know what was happening close to the injection-hole/source/center of the circular droplet. We were more focused on the droplet’s shape than the behavior of the fluid within.

When I looked at a very low energy expansion between two very viscous fluids where the droplet behavior (expansion) was slow, I was able to see how the droplet first started oscillating about the injection-hole/source/center:

Even though the droplet looks circular to us, it isn’t circular to itself. Now why would we care about how it sees itself? Because if we’re interested in self-identification and self-awareness, we need to start small with simple systems to discover how our universe organizes itself into form and how that form forces it to functionally behave (Or, how it functionally behaves might force its forms). The expanding droplet’s relationship across its boundary varies, depends on lots of things. But for any droplet, that boundary relationship or boundary change happens when the droplet begins to oscillate about its central source (injection hole).

The above described behavior is how a droplet changes its shape, but not to us—only to itself. When this low energy droplet expands into a more viscous syrupy fluid environment, it begins to have some trouble (in pushing the other fluid out of the way), its boundary offsetting from the injection-hole/source/center—creating more tension in one side of its boundary (the sine wave trough) than the other (the sine wave crest).

We can learn two things about how the universe potentially functions from the discoveries above:

  1. The universe behaves in a relativistic way depending on it point of view: for example, I might see a perfectly circular drop, while the drop itself knows that it is offset to the side and beginning to behave/oscillate (with an unstable boundary in the shape of a sine wave).

[Many former human researchers, unable to see this start of the droplet’s instability, could not accurately match the mathematics of the droplet’s boundary relationship. Nor were they able to calculate or observe a. the time to instability, or b. show that general relativity applies to interfacial tension as it does to gravitational tension (if it does). This would be a great discovery for any new scientist.]

  • At the crest and trough of the wave on the boundary there is higher curvature and tension (even if we can’t see a sine wave’s crest and trough, the droplet (a sample/example of our universe) does see the wave). The trough when it first initiates one sine wave (when the droplet offsets from it’s center/source) at the boundary (closest to the injection-hole/source/center) might be thought of as having great inertia (a resistance to outward flow). [Actually, the trough resists outward movement because the fluid particles causing such movement at the crests takes a path of least resistance around the trough.]The crests, at first, have low curvature and so any random forces can change the crest areas because they act perpendicular to it.
  • Energy and information transfer: how we think of energy/info transfer at the Big Bang or other sources.

What we’ve discovered above is perspective. In a straw, the meniscus between water and air, for example, is curved up on one side of its boundary and down on the other side. That is a very simple example of how perspectives can become paired in relationship, or relationship boundaries. That is, boundaries, or interfaces, across which some behavior (or function) happens.

So, in order to understand perspective or point of view that leads to the awareness of such (and eventually to conscious awareness), we need to examine what follows from numbers 1. and 2., above.

More thought questions:

  1. How is our universe like an expanding unstable droplet that changes its shape to itself, but somewhat differently than it changes its shape for us?
  2. What’s flowing like a fluid (like our inner fluid) to expand our universe in outer space?
  3. How is this sine wave flow produced (for stable boundaries, for unstable boundaries?
  4. How is it produced within our body and brain (the Capillary Number): What is a Nondimensionalized number? How can it tell us how we are made to function within this grand relationship scheme?
  5. What happens to an offset droplet? How does it grow, and how does a dividing droplet resemble a black hole? How does information transfer differ in simple versus complex systems?
  6. What can we learn about how closely the biochemistry of our wetware human world is integrated with our electronic world by studying it from different perspectives?

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: