Aboriginal Physics Newsletter

spatial habitat-inhabitant resonances orchestrating individual and collective behaviour

The argument between the ‘Pro-Life’ and ‘Pro-Choice’ factions might take on a very different complexion if the notion of ‘choice’ were to be examined more closely.

In particular, the notion of human ‘control’ over ‘population’ could be exposed as an artefact of science confusing ‘idealised models’ for ‘reality’.  Human beings are not ‘in control’, not when they are understood as being ‘a strand in the interdependent, mutually supportive ‘web-of-life’.  When they/we label insects as ‘pests’ and attempt to ‘control their population’, we are spitting on the web and in so doing, we spit on ourselves.  When they/we identify and label bacteria as ‘pathogens’ and attempt to ‘control their population’, we are spitting on the web and in so doing, we spit on ourselves (keeping things in ‘resonant’ balance is another matter).  As Pasteur said, in refuting his own ‘germ theory’ which labeled microbes ‘pathogens’, and as Hippocrates had said before him, when one lives in a web of interdependencies within a dynamic space (Nature) that one is merely an inclusion in (man did not invent it but was invented by it), the issue is not ‘control’ but ‘sustaining balance and harmony’. Read the rest of this entry »

In the sixties, Anthropologist Jules Henry hit the nail on the head in ‘Culture Against Man’ (1963), saying that culture makes us live absurd lives.

Culture has us running around like electrons in a magnetic field.  ‘Tensions’ that we can feel, shape our individual and collective behaviour.  Racial tensions between ‘blacks’ and ‘whites’ (whether they began from intellectual notions of inherent white racial supremacy or whatever) induced blacks to use separate eating places, toilets, seating at the back of the bus and it induced outrage in whites if blacks did not show deference to their (self-declared) ’superiors’, those of the white race.

‘Tensions’ within a culture shape more individual and collective behaviours than ‘race relations’.  They can also trigger actions in the explosive manner that tensions in the earth trigger earthquakes.   Powerful ‘tensions’ that we associate with symbolic meaning (the quasi-religious meaning of white and black skin, of a national flag, of a cow in India, or a pig in Israel etc.) suggest that homo sapiens should have been called ‘homo symbolicus’.  But since our response to symbolic meaning keeps us living absurd lives, it has also been suggested that homo sapiens should have been called ‘homo absurdus’. Read the rest of this entry »

What if scientists had labelled ‘field’, ‘spirit’, instead of field?  Would science and religion then be ‘more together’?

Buoyant spirits ................................... Sinking spirits

‘Spirit’ seems to be a property of nature that shows through in the dynamics of the diverse forms in nature.

However, our western culture decided to build a common worldview based on material existence rather than ‘field’, and we are so heavily invested in it now, that doing a ‘retro-fit’ to put ‘field’ or ‘spirit’ first, is like the proverbial ‘changing tires on a car while it is speeding down the freeway’. Read the rest of this entry »

One can understand very well Emerson’s view of ‘evolution’ and how it is more truthful to life and experience than Darwin’s, if and only if one trains one’s ‘mind’ to suspend acculturated ‘perception framing habits’.

Without suspending these habits, it is pointless to ‘debate’ an Emersonian ‘worldview’ with others.  Emerson realized this and would not accept invitations to debate his views with those who were clearly coming from a different set of basic ‘framing’ assumptions than he.  There would be no point since, by coming from different foundations, the two would be talking at crossed purposes, unless they preceded their debate with a debate on those different foundations.

Emerson declared what his were, but many people didn’t listen, so in spite of Emerson’s readings and writings being extraordinarily inspirational, the logicians working them over concluded that they boiled down to nothing tangible and usable, that they were all ‘smoke and mirrors’ e.g;

“Dr. Burnap of Baltimore described Transcendentalism as “a new philosophy which has risen, maintaining that nothing is everything in general, and everything is nothing in particular.”” Read the rest of this entry »

darwin................................... emerson....................................newton

Darwin, pausing briefly on the wave-washed decks of the Beagle, contemplated how close to the edge of an early ‘recycling’ in nature that the ship, its crew and passengers were now hanging.  The thought of the ship being broken open by the sea and its plummeting descent to a peaceful resting place in the briny depths was not entirely unpleasant, in view of how it would bring an end to his frightful mal-de-mer.  On the sea bottom, his body would be food for algae and the algae would be food for plankton and the plankton food for fish.  Some other human mariner would eat that fish that ate the plankton that ate the algae that ate Charles Darwin and the circle of life would go on.  In his log he wrote;

“In the Bay of Biscay there was a long and continued swell, and the misery I endured from seasickness is far far beyond what I ever guessed  … Nobody who has only been to sea for 24 hours has a right to say that sea-sickness is even uncomfortable. The real misery only begins when you are so exhausted that a little exertion makes a feeling of faintness come on.”  — ‘Charles Darwin and the voyage of the Beagle’. Read the rest of this entry »

Chief Dan George, ........................... Erwin Schroedinger, ........................ Albert Einstein

Chief Dan George: Welcome, Erwin, Albert, let us start by paying tribute to the rocks which make Turtle Island possible for us to sit together here, patient bearers of moss and bird droppings (… mind yourself there, Erwin), we salute you, and we salute as well all of the four-leggeds, two-leggeds, rooted and winged ones, the running waters that transport us, the fresh winds that breathe life into us, and the sun now shining brightly above us which warms our brows and brings flowers from the earth to brighten our spirits.   We are but strands in this web-of-life though our proud words often take us captive and have us strut about as if we were its owners. Read the rest of this entry »

did Darwin UNNECESSARILY throw the Baby out with the bathwater?

There is always controversy in talking about God, starting from the basic issue of whether or not ‘God Exists’.  But there is general agreement that different people have different views on the topic.

Thus, there is an opportunity to review the different ‘ways of seeing things’ that influence one’s views on this matter which in turn have a major influence on the global social dynamic.

I will ‘jump in’ upfront with a simplifying hypothesis to avoid getting bogged down in a conventional review of this huge subject.

Science typically models the world in terms of LOCAL objects/organisms/systems and the actions/interactions of this diverse plurality, imputing them to have ‘their own LOCAL AGENCY’ and imputing to ‘living systems’, their own LOCALLY ORIGINATING (internal process/purpose-driven) BEHAVIOUR, … however, … scientists are more often and more seriously challenging this (their own)  ‘LOCAL-FORCING’  view of dynamics with the alternative ‘SPATIAL-FORCING’  (aka ‘CELESTIAL-SOURCING‘) view of dynamics.  This issue is cross-coupled with theology since ‘GOD’ has always been associated with the ‘basic sourcing power of creation (i.e. ‘GOD’ has been the answer for many as to why we and other creatures are here and why the world dynamic unfolds the way it does.  So, there is a question as to whether the fundamental (first-cause) creative sourcing power is ‘LOCAL’ and lies within local objects/organisms/systems (e.g. the ‘gene’, the ‘human’, the ‘earth’) or whether it permeates the energy-charged medium we call ‘SPACE’ that science now sees as the mothering medium of all precipitate material objects, organisms and systems.  While this may seem to be an ‘intra-science issue’, it is tightly coupled to ‘THE GOD ISSUE’.

One of these seemingly ‘intra-science’ issues is ‘climate change’.  Scientists are split as to whether this behaviour-of-the-total-earth is ‘celestially-forced’ or ‘locally (internal-process) forced’.  Read the rest of this entry »

Continuing inquiry into the ‘demographics’ of how people split into polarized opposition of views, is leading me to the notion (not yet a conclusion) that Russian scientists and perhaps the Russian people in general have a different ‘polarization of views’ profile than in ‘the West’.

What has led me to further explore this possibility is the remarkable difference in the proportion of scientists favouring ‘local forcing of climate change’ (CO2-forcing) versus those who favour ‘celestial forcing of climate change’, in ‘the West’ and in ‘Russia’ respectively.    A rough estimate based on what is reported in the media and also through email exchanges with scientists is that, in the West, there is perhaps an 80% – 20% split in favour of ‘local [CO2} forcing of climate change' while in Russia, the proportion seems to be inverted, with an 80% - 20% split in favour of 'celestial [solar cycles, orbital deviation cycles] forcing of climate change’.

It seems fair to say that such differences in scientific views between Russia and the West haven’t been seen since the days of the cold war where, for example, many Americans believed that the 1959 Russian (Luna 3) pictures of the ‘dark side’ of the moon were faked.

So, what is the origin of this dramatic difference in scientific view? Read the rest of this entry »

What was I thinking when I wrote ‘The Invisible Spatial Origins of Material Dynamics’?.

The assimilation of ideas of others is an everyday activity, and, most often, the ‘cognitive engine’ we employ in this activity is ‘untouched’ by the ideas we are ‘processing’, but in philosophical discourse, it often happens that there are ideas that concern the ‘cognitive engine’ itself, that require ‘real-time’ modifications to the cognitive engine in order to be ‘properly processed’ so that the ideas can be shared and discussed.

If, bundled in with the ideas, are some ‘instructions’ for modifications to the cognitive engine necessary for the proper processing of the ideas, and if the engine modifications are not made but the ideas are processed with the pre-existing cognitive engine, the ideas that ‘come through’ may be severely ‘bastardized’and confuse the dialogue.

[It may also be the case that our acculturation has been putting 'governors' on us that restrain the natural scope of our cognitive powers.]

That presents a problem to the writer (‘moi’, in this case) because it asks quite a bit of the reader.  That is, if he tinkers around and tunes his cognitive engine for this reading, will he be able, at the same time, to get everything back together the old way? Read the rest of this entry »

Consider the parallelism between Gabor’s Theory of Communication and human  understanding of, for example, sediment deposition and/or climate change..

Gabor’s theory of communications augments a purely tangible (‘real’) time sequence of information elements into a ‘complex’ (‘real’ + ‘imaginary’) information signal.  Gabor developed this ‘quantum physics compliant’ communications theory based on Pauli’s formulation of the ‘uncertainty principle’; i.e. wherein ‘time’ and ‘frequency’ are understood to be interrelated.

Gabor compares this to augmenting a ‘rotating vector’ with a ‘rotating field’ (which is 90 degrees phase shifted from the rotation of the vector).  Tied up in this arguably more comprehensive ‘communications theory’ are the modes of understanding associated with ‘observation’, ‘experiencing’, ‘perception’ and a quality of observation that is termed in German ‘anschaulichkeit’§ (‘intuitively real’ or true to nature).

Imagine the rotating pinwheel appearance of a ‘hurricane’.   Read the rest of this entry »