Just where does the notion of a \u2018random chance happening\u2019 come from?<\/p>\n
All of our experience testifies to the fact that Nature is continually gathering and regathering EVERYTHING in its ceaseless innovating.\u00a0 NOTHING is excluded from this continually unifying fluid-dynamic we know as \u2018nature\u2019.<\/p>\n
The spacetime continuum we are included in is evolving as one dynamic entity, is it not?<\/p>\n
We notionally divide transforming nature up according to OUR visual impression that there are \u2018local, independently existing material objects\/organisms\/systems\u2019 that APPEAR to us to have \u2018their own locally originating (internal process-driven and internal knowledge, purpose and instinct-directed) behaviours\u2019.<\/p>\n
But in spite of that impression of the existence of local independence of material things, our experience is that nothing escapes from nature\u2019s continual regathering of those things into itself as it is parenting the emergence of new local material forms.<\/p>\n
One might ask why would \u2018competition\u2019 arise in nature since the over-arching dynamic reality is that of continual innovative reunification?\u00a0\u00a0 Perhaps \u2018competition\u2019 is another case of mistaken APPEARANCES.<\/p>\n
LOGICALLY, something has to \u2018give\u2019 since it is impossible to make sense out of the world being both, at the same time, a collection of independent objects with their own local agency and also a continuously unifying spatial continuum.<\/p>\n
What does \u2018give\u2019, on reflective inquiry, is the notion of the \u2018local independent existence\u2019 of material things and what also \u2018gives\u2019 with it is the notion of \u2018locally originating (internal process and purpose-driven) behaviour\u2019 of those things.<\/p>\n
\u2018Local independent material body existence\u2019 and \u2018local agency\u2019 are \u2018impressions\u2019 or \u2018appearances\u2019 and we know full well how we synthetically \u2018elevate\u2019 these dynamic forms in the flow out of the flow to APPEAR to become \u2018local things in their own right\u2019.\u00a0 It is by notionally imposing a fixed reference frame over them so that we can imagine their dynamic relative to the fixed reference frame rather than relative to everything in the universe.\u00a0 Our understanding of the gravity field is that it is everywhere in the universe at the same time and that everything in the universe is influenced by it.\u00a0 We even design \u2018inertial guidance systems\u2019 based on this notion which clearly \u2018work\u2019 and thus \u2018validate\u2019 this universal interrelational influence notion that we call \u2018gravity\u2019.<\/p>\n
As for local fixed inertial frames, those things upon which \u2018local agency\u2019 depends, there is no such thing in real world experience.\u00a0 They exist only in our imagination.<\/p>\n
The new physics of relativity and quantum theory suggest that the universe is firstly characterized by \u2018thingless connectedness\u2019 where \u2018matter\u2019 is a visible concentration of energy within a continuous energy field, the entire field taking form and reforming under the influence of gravity which is \u2018everywhere at the same time\u2019.\u00a0\u00a0 Persisting \u2018standing wave\u2019 forms in this energy field are visible and we call them \u2018matter\u2019 but far from existing \u2018independently\u2019, they are resonant energy and thus in a similar in their relation to space as a storm-cell is to the flow of the atmosphere.\u00a0 Because the persisting standing wave forms are \u2018visible\u2019, we tend to think of them as \u2018local, independently existing bodies\u2019.\u00a0 Such local independent existence is the product of our thought which does not agree with the realities of our experience. \u00a0\u00a0Nothing is separate from the continual innovative regathering flow of the space of Nature.\u00a0 \u00a0That is, when we try to explain the world dynamic (the way the world works) starting from local material bodies and their notional locally originating (internally driven and directed) behaviour, it doesn\u2019t work because such an explanation leaves out where the local bodies come from and where they go to. \u00a0Clearly they come out of the dynamic space of Nature and they are regathered within it, but that is not \u2018covered\u2019 in models which are in terms of \u2018what local material bodies do\u2019.<\/p>\n
For example, we can say that birds are local material systems called \u2018organisms\u2019 with locally originating (internally-driven and directed) behaviours so that when we see wildgeese flying in a \u2018V\u2019 formation, we say it is the birds that create this \u2018V\u2019 formation.\u00a0 And how could it be otherwise, because in our standard world view, we first \u2018disconnect\u2019 the birds from the natural space they are included in and re-render their dynamic behaviours as if they were \u2018locally-forced\u2019 out of their own interiors?<\/p>\n
Well, we know that while what is most noticeable to us is the locally visible material bodies of the birds that they are virtually \u2018swimming in air\u2019 and we know that \u2018air\u2019 has its own particular way of behaving when we \u2018poke it\u2019 and no scientist of any capability would deny the fact that the turbulence in the fluid flow of air has a way of orchestrating the individual and collective behaviours of things moving through it.\u00a0 That is, it resists some shapes and speeds very strongly and it accommodates other shapes and speeds far more receptively.\u00a0 By its property of differentially spatially accommodating\/resisting, it influences the shape and behaviour of things moving within it.\u00a0\u00a0 That is, its spatial dynamic \u2018organises\u2019 the individual and collective behaviour of the wildgeese.\u00a0 This is no different from the tree boughs moving in the wind or the flag blowing in the wind, where the transformation of the shape of the tree\/flag and the transformation of the airflow is simultaneous and mutual, so that we cannot ask \u2018which moves first and which follows\u2019.<\/p>\n
The dynamic of wind-and-flag, wind-and-tree and wind-and-geese are all simultaneously mutually influencing. \u00a0\u00a0Just because flag, tree and goose appear to us as local, material bodies that inform our visual sense while the wind is, at the bottom of it all (beneath the mixture of gases that are brought into motion), a \u2018pressure field\u2019 and thus non-local, invisible and non-material, … this doesn\u2019t justify attributing all of the sourcing of the motion to that which we humans can see, the local, visible, material flags, trees, geese.\u00a0 Humans can \u2018feel\u2019 as well as \u2018see\u2019 and when we are in a wind, we are aware that the wind tries to orient us as it does a weather-vane that always turns up into the wind because the parts of it that catch more wind orient down-wind while the parts that catch less wind orient up-wind.\u00a0 As we try to point to something in a gale, our arm doesn\u2019t point exactly where we want it to. \u00a0It\u2019s as if the wind has us by the wrist and is trying to force us to point elsewhere. \u00a0\u00a0Where our wobbly arm is pointing is the net result of our intention to point somewhere and the wind\u2019s tendency to re-orient our limbs. \u00a0There is no way to know which is contributing how much to where we are actually pointing because the only information we can actually observe, is the net of the two.<\/p>\n
However complicated it is to understand \u2018trees being blown by the wind\u2019.\u00a0 If we have a grove of trees, things become more complicated; i.e. the movement of the trees transform the airflow which changes the movement of the adjacent trees which changes the airflow and who is doing what to whom becomes very complicated because it is all happening at once.<\/p>\n
Mach\u2019s principle of relativity describes the relationship between the dynamics of space and matter this way; \u2018The dynamics of space (wind) condition the dynamics of matter (trees) at the same time as the dynamics of matter (trees) are conditioning the dynamics of space (wind).<\/p>\n
This brings us back to our habit of imposing a fixed reference frame. \u00a0Here, we can pick out one tree in the blowing grove and make a video of it. \u00a0The fixed viewing field of the camera lens serves as the fixed frame. \u00a0We can slow the motion and measure the deflections of each limb and each leaf, down to the millimeter, and thus we can say that \u2018the tree is moving in such and such a manner\u2019 with great accuracy. \u00a0\u00a0We could similarly describe the movement of a group of humans struggling together to reach shelter in hurricane force winds.<\/p>\n
The trouble is, it is no longer accurate (it never was) to assume that the movements the trees or the movements of the people are \u2018their movements\u2019. \u00a0There is just one movement and that is the movement of nature. \u00a0\u00a0The movements of \u2018things\u2019 are movements we synthetically break out of the one-movement by imposing a fixed reference frame and measuring the movement of the visual material form relative to the fixed frame, when it is in fact moving relative to everything else in the universe.<\/p>\n
This point was made by Henri Poincar\u00e9 in his essay \u2018Le Hasard\u2019 which inquired into the nature of \u2018chance\u2019 or \u2018random events\u2019. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0Visualize a man who walks the same route from home to work every day. \u00a0One day, he is passing by the corner of the white picket fence as he always does but happens to be there, this time, just as a tree breaks in the wind, and it falls and kills him. \u00a0We say that it was a \u2018random event\u2019.\u00a0 We say that out of thousand of repeated trials, the probability of this happening was only one chance in a thousand.<\/p>\n
This notion of random chance is our own contrivance. \u00a0We created the notion of randomness by dividing out the action of this one man and making it appear as if he were capable of his own motion, as if he were a local, independently-existing material body with its own locally originating (internal process-driven and purpose-directed) behaviour. \u00a0\u00a0But the truth is that there is just one world dynamic and the man was included in all the while and there was no \u2018repetition\u2019 of his home to work trips because he was included in the continuously innovating space of nature. \u00a0\u00a0As Heraclitus put it; \u201cNo man ever steps in the same river twice, for it\u2019s not the same river and he\u2019s not the same man.\u201d<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n The notion of this being a \u2018random event\u2019 is bogus. \u00a0It is the artefact of our imposing of imaginary fixed reference frames. \u00a0We use the fixed frame to artificially \u2018isolate\u2019 a dynamic form which is moving relative to the entire universe, and depict him instead, as if he is moving \u2018in his own right\u2019.<\/p>\n This is the same \u2018device\u2019 that Darwin used in alleging that \u2018random chance\u2019 in combination with \u2018reproduction\u2019 explained \u2018evolution\u2019.<\/p>\n THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS \u2018REPRODUCTION\u2019 AND NO SUCH THING AS \u2018RANDOM CHANCE\u2019 IN NATURE.<\/p>\n These notions, \u2018reproduction\u2019 and \u2018random chance\u2019 are simplifications of convenience, idealisations that should not be confused for \u2018reality\u2019.<\/p>\n Emerson and others were \u2018on target\u2019 when they complained that;<\/p>\n \u201cDarwin has deposed Providence and enthroned chance as the governing power of the universe.\u201d<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n If a windblown tree seed lands on fertile ground on a windswept coast and takes root and grows and matures, it will, AS WE SAY \u2018reproduce\u2019 and the first few trees will be bent and gnarly from the wind and as the reproduction continues to the point there is a grove, the trees will give shelter to one another and will grow tall and straight. \u00a0We call this \u2018reproduction\u2019 but ; \u2018No tree ever raises up in the same forest twice, for its not the same forest and its not the same tree.\u2019<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n Only if space were an absolute infinite void could we speak of \u2018reproduction\u2019.<\/p>\n As a matter of fact, that is exactly what we assume, that space is an absolute infinite void, when we impose a rigid reference frame so as to isolate a dynamic form and synthetically lift it out of its relation with the universe.<\/p>\n THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS \u2018REPRODUCTION\u2019 AND NO SUCH THING AS \u2018RANDOM CHANCE\u2019 IN NATURE.<\/p>\n The man who was struck and killed by a falling tree was not the victim of a random act, but was in the powerful guiding flow of Nature\u2019s providence, the unfolding spatial dynamic in which he was a situationally included participant. \u00a0This was his place in the naturally unfolding scheme of things.\u00a0 What actually unfolds\/happens in the continuing present is all that we can experience, all the rest is conjecture.<\/p>\n Our experience is that our behaviour is not always \u2018deliberate\u2019 and coming out of internal knowledge or purpose. \u00a0\u00a0When we drive friendly in the flow of the freeway, we let our movements serve the cultivating of balance and harmony.<\/p>\n Our behaviour in this case is not \u2018vision, mission, values, strategies, goals and objectives\u2019 (internal knowledge and purpose) driven.<\/p>\n What is driving it?\u00a0 What\u2019s driving it is \u2018feelings\u2019, the same thing that is driving the wildgeese behaviour that orchestrates their individual and collective behaviours and manifests in their \u2018V\u2019 flying formation.<\/p>\n Whose feelings?<\/p>\n It is not simply \u2018their feelings\u2019 since they are being informed as to how to enter a dynamic space in such a manner as to least provoke turbulence and resistance in that space. \u00a0Therefore, what we call \u2018our feelings\u2019 in this case are really \u2018the universe\u2019s feeling\u2019s or the \u2018universal spirit\u2019 or \u2018genius of nature\u2019 that Emerson talks about.<\/p>\n Schroedinger argues that, in the world, there is just \u2018One Mind\u2019 and Emerson implicitly argues that, in addition, there is just \u2018One Spirit\u2019 (\u2018heart\u2019) and these notions do indeed present themselves to us when we suspend our habit of imposing abstract framings on the world of our experience to break the world up into pseudo-independent parts.\u00a0 As Emerson\u2019s friend Monclure Daniel Conway cites Emerson in his homage to Emerson (Emerson at Home and Abroad);<\/p>\n “God is “the universal spirit,” whose “essence refuses to be recorded in propositions.” The “universal essence, which is not wisdom, or love, or beauty, or power, but all in one, and each entirely, is that for which all things exist, and that by which they are.” “Spirit creates.” “That which, intellectually considered, we call reason, considered in relation to nature we call spirit.” … “Who can set bounds to the possibilities of man?” “Man has access to the entire mind of the Creator, is himself the creator in the finite.” “The reason why the world lacks unity and lies broken and in heaps, is because man is disunited with himself.” “When a faithful thinker, resolute to detach every object from personal relations, and see it in the light of thought, shall, at the same time, kindle science with the fire of the holiest affections; then will God go forth anew into the creation.”<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The \u2018universal spirit\u2019 calls to us to take our place in the natural scheme of things.\u00a0 This involves letting ourselves serve that which is greater than us, the cultivating of balance and\u00a0 harmony as when we are driving \u2018friendly\u2019 in the flow of the freeway.\u00a0 The analogy presents itself in the flow of life we find ourselves situationally included in.\u00a0 Today, there are plenty of diversions, loyalty to a political cause or the pursuit of material gains.\u00a0 These diversions associate with our \u2018locally originating, internal knowledge and purpose directed behaviours.\u00a0 If we put these \u2018first\u2019 then we never pay heed to the \u2018universal spirit\u2019, to putting our behaviours firstly into the cultivating of balance and harmony in the dynamics of space that we share inclusion on.<\/p>\n Our current world dynamic is putting political loyalties (corporate, national) and economics into an unnatural primacy over answering the call to take our place in the natural scheme of things.\u00a0 It is fluff or foam devoid of the \u2018universal spirit\u2019. \u00a0It has no grounding in nature and is like a runaway carriage on a trip to who knows where. \u00a0Many people recognize this and are working together to establish \u2018transition communities\u2019 that will kindle a re-grounding in nature, in the \u2018universal spirit\u2019. \u00a0As these develop, people will have their own natural calling to answer. \u00a0In times of emergency, they will not need to sit in fear of what may happen, but will be working the problem with their fellows. \u00a0The superstructure of global politics and global economy will become gradually less and less relevant to \u2018what counts\u2019 in the lives of the re-grounded citizenry.<\/p>\n \u2018Random chance\u2019 and its cohort \u2018repetition\u2019 are abstractions that some people (politicians and economists) feel are the antidote to Einstein\u2019s contention that \u2018Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result\u2019. \u00a0Darwinism has convinced us that Nature plays this absurd game, but it is really all in man\u2019s mind.<\/p>\n * * *<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Just where does the notion of a \u2018random chance happening\u2019 come from? All of our experience testifies to the fact that Nature is continually gathering and regathering EVERYTHING in its ceaseless innovating.\u00a0 NOTHING is excluded from this continually unifying fluid-dynamic we know as \u2018nature\u2019. The spacetime continuum we are included in is evolving as one […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-642","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-teds-blog","count-0","even alt","author-emile","last"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/642","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=642"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/642\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":644,"href":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/642\/revisions\/644"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=642"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=642"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodshare.org\/wp\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=642"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}