Sunday, May 20, 2012
The Technology of Material Exclusion
The Technology of Material Exclusion
I find it interesting that we can view some of our big experiments in its methods, as if it were necessary from the inherent intelligibility of the view, that in the search for understanding the structure, the stereonometry of the universe and that within it as enquiry into core philosophy.
The great colliders, the development of superconductivity researched, trying to contain plasma for hot fusion, even the questionable principle of Pauli exclusion that amounts to but a working principle against the natural reasoning we say holds mysteriously as science known yet pushed into abstract ideas of vague probability space or local and nonlocal ideas of similarity and superposition, that are great modern experiments in the search to find things like higher dimensions and supersymmetry, are philosophical experiments in the final analysis.
Not far from this, as we look into the heart of atoms, is the inclusion of what is the background of energy and mass conversion itself as a consequence of scale and the tightrope of structures of fusionable and fissionable isotope changes or directing quasifinite bits leading to chain reaction, including the analogous biological ones, as we fancy that at this realm of philosophy certain ideas of stereonometry require again our dealing with the hidden symmetries and anomalies in our time called dark matter.
What are we trying to prove as we debate things like the quantum theory as a philosophic and not just scientific thought experiment if not this a stance to the question of what is existence itself and why its form- science as the second philosophy of Descartes is indeed these issues of a method of enquiry as doubting all inputs of data.
This naturally raises epistemology and the logic of non necessity as having concrete exceptions, the entropy like consciousness imagined in making the distinction insofar as if the mechanism is mental or mechanical alone or a mix, the endless debate of parties for or against such an interpretation of quantum theory, that key fulcrum vanishes into the working philosophy, or the machines of our argument. Thus even in the lucidity of Hume we find some thing neutral in the middle wherein we are precariously balanced on what any extension of causality may be defined only by extension and not at this razor thin center cut of wedges sharpened to focused emptiness of the idea of nothing. Or we can enshrine ideas of precise focusing as a philosophy of ignorance as the measure, as uncertainty.
Descartes asks if he doubts his existence is there after all something that seems concrete, that he cannot so doubt. That this seems the case he shows by the idea that if all is as if in a dream, an illusion or fancy, this shows that even in such a dream there is a reality of concrete existence of which he is thinking or existing even if it not consciousness as a substance in itself concrete- not at first blush and not once we do exist concretely (that is have not vanished back into some irreversible night or lack of coherence into parts that have not reached some critical mass of organism) Our dreams prove to him our engagement with reality also.
Does is really matter, in the balancing of equations, that the dreamy, ghostly particles like neutrinos or perhaps their higher analogs that seemed on the face only of higher planes of existence, that is contained as if in God's pilot waves and left the reality of a soliton, volumes of illusion smashed into the distinct superpositions on a background, a brane, that these are only in an illusion sense concrete and invisible save we imagine they have some physical effects? How do we distinguish them from other such effects by unknown forces or particles or perhaps real realms of conscious thoughts? Science in itself is not the search for wisdom so to discern what is science or pseudoscience, philosophy or philosophic delusions real by default, that is a distraction away from the gaining of the byproducts of research and widening of the frontiers of thought and civilization.
It seems to me also a defeat, an acceptance of the level and situation of our ignorance, the settling for lesser dreams and the convincing us our purposes and scientific goals and careers are not a noble, nay a moral, enterprise.
In the containment, or wave guide, in a duality of higher dialectics of symmetry, to so control the evolution is to paradoxically have society work against is goals of socialization and diversity- science in some objective sense strives to bring these views of social and engineering political philosophies back to the same loop or tracks again with joint interests after the exhaustion of clashes in the natural hippodrome or rat race of a social system- here again our machines ape the stereonomic models of space and time, of nature and matter, as we collide bits of matter that in the old primitive concept, in the idea of heat where none actually applies as a fundamental substance, linear or in circular tracks, we run trains together and analyse the debris for clues to such a real or imaginary universal structure and theory. Matter in the old sense is that it cannot occupy the same place at the same time, There is no concept of mass defect or for that matter entropy at rest. Nor the strange reversals where more mass makes for denser volumes- pile up bricks the the volume gets larger.
We have barely begun to think in these terms so as to show these foundational past things needing a wider and formal analyses so some may say we have progressed over the philosophic or more poetic of terms and ideas- like some say time is the fourth dimension, or energy once a poetic word made concrete from some vague metaphysics into crystal claritiy. Such is also the great supercollider of our mental archetecture, in dreams or otherwise.
* * * * * * *