Saturday, June 27, 2009

Sacred Geometry as Cosmic Theory

Sacred Geometry as Cosmic Theory

From time to time ideas of sacred geometry have come up on the philosophychatforum. I have had mixed feelilng about this as to how it may relate to physics and the philosophy of science. But for some issues I have gained a wider view. Plato after all discussed such things, The Metatron. The Platonic dice. Points or lines distinguishing space structures. Certainly there are thinking people with flakey theories, some of whom I have spoken to personally- or shall I say they have a certain frame of mind and cultural view. Oddly enough between various aspects of such theories there has been bitter competition for some point of principle.

How then are we to judge the utility of such ideas? How can geometry be all encompassing and yet empty if viewed a certain way to apply to what is real of our experience? From a general view the underlying physical or metaphysical principles suggests that such philosophies stand or fall together as philosophy of science or of physics. The certain analogies of geometry (as opposed to say linguistic analogy) as to how math applies and fits the cosmos is still subject to this grounding of doubt and a vague sense of being as certainty.

One obvious analogy is the surface of the earth as the sea in such an analog in three space (the surface of a higher sphere). We show how from our galaxy the others may seem to be recedeing from us as if on a baloon that expands. We sense that in the degrees of freedom we find in the sea these apply to objects in space or to the dimensions of particles. In a submarine or spaceship the background seems similiar.

So, in some ideas of the Sacredness of Gaea some have proposed on the surface of the earth things like Ley lines and presumably magnetic regions such as the Bermuda Triangle. This seems to me like the idea of a limited or multiple extension of the universe as if gravity or magnetic regions are like a slinky, rather less uniform at some scale pictured as if a slinky or some other chiral warped space manifold. Again we make distinctions naturally, contradictory or correspondingly co-existing without a more unified theory.

It does not help to conceive of structures and design as if things totally chaotic somehow average out to a commensurable theory. That reaches but does not exceed the math and logic involved (necessiarily). That is to say there is not at least a higher intelligible theory of design and not one of some assumptions as the grounding. To believe in such axioms of grounding is to limit scientific method as relativist falsification.

So, from the viewpoint of the mathematicians, engineers, and physicists of some in the sciencechatforum, the way they treat the frontiers of geometry and mathematical concern amounts to no more than a similarity or perhaps identical stance toward physics as sacred geometry. We find power regions or we find Ley lines when things are pushed to limits- one day perhaps these modern physics will seem as vague and flaky as some of the midevil post do to us today. Are we to limit things to say like Aristotle there is only circular motion and then analyze these as we do particle tracks to explain mass and momentum? The power of the calculus is only as good as our understanding of it as so applied and the world as long as we exist seems to be intellligible so mathematics may be what to us now seems incomplete thus experimental. The fault then is not that we do not have to know the higher ideas of the calculus to know at least continuum physics, but that we havfe not developed our calculus to a more philosophic level nor interpreted what we know correctly.

Perhaps in a sense- to show the wider questions of such reasoning about the infinite (where eventually all configurations occur) or the sense that there may be something truly and timelessly new beyond our contained history and experience (with God all things are possible) let us say we do stumble on something new in experiments like the particle colliders. What would it mean if we made say the Original Particle or something like it. While we may not destroy a city or the earth or even a solar system creating it or its context (if such "laws" are naturally uniform) what happens if it destroys the universe itself? Would it make a difference? In any case part of this needs to be sorted out as to the nature of arrows of time (much better explained than all the existing explanations). One such explanation involves the quasic ideas as to what is centered or not and over a wider interval of space and time, a causality on a fimer footing, which again is the question of poetic or narrative identity.

No comments:

Post a Comment