Confluence VII (Cosmic Instability)

Confluence VII  (Cosmic Instability)

L. Edgar Otto   

*February, 2013*21  6:55:01 PM

The metaphysics in this golden age of cosmology and the swan song as felt by those who have achieved great new heights of our technology at the frontier of particle physics is alive and well.

The core philosophic stances seem relatively stable in endorsements for what is science fact or dream from one or the other side of an issue that tries to dismiss the other or unify them with higher connections of such theoretical ideas.

Just as with the mentally confused who cross bridges afraid of heights or the river, perhaps the proximity to the possibility of loss of control as if to have to face decisions to jump in their own thoughts or from some outside force as necessity within... or all the ideas that we do not find the depth of living without the contemplation and behavior toward such choices,

while admittedly a very small sample these people after crossing the bridge safe somehow by me ask inevitably if I think the world will end.

The imagined scenarios, just as with those of Hell so to expand or prepare a wider awareness of our mind's if not soul's potential, its intuition level and faith level over intellect and the dangers of wild instinct are powerful tools that touch us intimately in religious eschatology. 

True to the form of such metaphysical speculation- and we should give credit for such a new complexity in the theories compared to those of the past- the reductionist measure as if to question its certainty of world view- but for some distant tomorrow decides that the values of the Higgs shows an indifferent universe with great instability that could vanish in an end of the world scenario.  What then from some fanciful form of their fiction of the role of symmetry (which is not necessarily the case- if the universe in a sense explodes everywhere, where does the debris go and will any intelligent being survive this to perhaps rebirth into cyclic or greater states) that at this flatland of stability, closer to metastability, does some form of this symmetry save the day? 

Obviously we may consider sub parts of nucleons in some sort of generational scheme, a sixth but ghostly top quark or some hidden particles we try to associate with a fifth force usually related to some sense of a substructure in the depths of our home model of physics- our Earth, its dynamics and overall structure, but is this the same sort of idea of super symmetries.  Moreover, this remains the constant counter that is the grounding for the other end of the spectrum of metaphysical ideas applied with or without obvious observation and explanation even without other explanations that ground what some imagine then as anomalies.

If the laws of the general universe are in part at least uniform over space and time then in a sense such endings of the world are ongoing physics not in any particular place in time in worlds already ended, or averaged up from this in the small, smaller than what we may regard as some absolute minimum yet not negative mass or existence that clings to an intelligible measure of observable distance.

In the quasifinitude of the universe (the Omnium more generally) such a confirmation of a particle that mediates or imparts mass or energy measure at the threshold of stability as our foundational grounding in a sort of general brane flatland we should not expect otherwise in how the universe has intelligible design and practical structure, for in this stance of the complexity of possible worlds few would exist if that is possible beyond theory,  this level of instability is the engine that make a universe of being possible as we so know it- it would not exist intelligibly without it nor would it encompass a theory of everything of physical being or its parts in isolation or not. 

But by this I do not mean we have to resort to statistical arguments nor remain in one of the two modern physics stances that what is comes up from the depths of isolation as if a quantum jittery foam that knows no more its start, even by accident, as source beyond the infinitesimal.  Our mainstream idea of differentiation as geometry is not powerful enough tool to apply completely for our theories of everything nor what its cosmic mirror of vague integrations into covering metaphysics of unity be powerful enough by itself either.

It may follow from a more sociological or psychological sense that the analog to such general new physics structures and models- if indeed this is the case at least in some constraint of modeling freedoms our minds can mimic or access at some foundational ground- that such cosmic questions intimately apply to us as sentient creatures in the background of whatever else we want to make of the experience or supposed purposes of life as it subtly or radically changes in the moment before our compound changing eyes, likewise, that we ask if a mind could reach a point of catastrophic instability that we should distrust or try to contain, perhaps by the chemistry or false security of doing it this way.   Has such a mind, while physically alive, not in a sense vanished save into some vague idea of soul?

Perhaps we can be assured in the main that even if such things are not resolved in a given mind or its perceived behaviors in a social world, or are not internalized by sufficient education or contemplation, that these strangers of which to be wary for their mental states with rare exceptions are in the main stable despite cosmic instabilities.  But we cannot focus on this with agendas until we have better theories of everything beyond perhaps our concepts of consciousness and awareness.

The promise that the awakening world finally in a sense begins to which each sentient thing is one with the togetherness of others until sometimes for the sense of justice or clarity of revolution as no agendas are necessary or forbidden for testing perhaps some souls will break the flow for the unexplained shear hell of doing so observed and self-sacrificing or not.  But do we not ultimately trust ourselves and our creativity for even the lost and narrow souls somewhere at the ground of being survival kicks in and dependency is as much one's own influences as that imposed as evolution from others.  Without a wider view of the physics and metaphysics we have the problem of what to do with our scientific and social or even running wild mistakes.  Where is it that ethically the technology has to catch up with us rather than we grasping the slippery tail of technology?

But do I tell you something new- if anything can be so, perhaps some new metaphysical myth entertaining from the higher achievements in the complexity?  If I seem to do I strongly feel that while some higher truths of philosophy and religion seem more compellingly there- we have to grow beyond our centuries of the various faiths and disciplines- Buddhism as but one example -and to this we can add some of our hopeful political ideologies- is not the answer nor complete when comparable to quantum physics although in origin and across civilizations many connections are made with the modern science.

Yet for such faiths it would be fool hardy to legislate or suppress them- that results in unstable virtual realities of a people or a state and their health of minds reduced to necessary dead ends and impractical necessary negative moments that may not benefit anyone nor any movement in the long run save a false extension of its decohering view or unresolved compromises.

In our imagining symmetry as central to physics and from a different perspective to our metaphysical concepts, where the structures and numbers are at least locally intelligible in our active engagement with life and time, are we not the hopeful monsters of the monster group... and what in our general discussion need we do to see a little further beyond that as some sort of maximum symmetry in our world?

* * * * * * *