How to dismantle a Universe
(Exert) ..Many of historys notorious scientists, winning fame for their ground breaking discoveries, were notoriously more mystics than scientists. Copernicus, Leibniz, Galileo, Newton, Einstein all had a passion for esoteric unravelling and mysticism, though in each case of a varied nature. In effect John Mayonard Keynes went so far as to call Newton an alchemist, the last of the great ancient Sorcerers. There is a straight line from the icon worship of the golden calf to the busts of the Greek philosophers (Socrates, Platp, Aristotle) every respectable Roman noble man carried in his home and the busts and paintings of Isac Newton in every decent Victorian home. In fact Newton became such an icon for modern science that any ambitious interior decoration, in the aftershock of the renaissance, late 17th century, had to carry a Newton portrait as the home altar– right next to the bust of Plato of course. This “background” of activity is obscured perhaps not consciously - knowledge were always at the backdrop of a more spiritual search for unifying externalisations, not necessarily within language. Abstract statements of ground breaking modern science comes from a much more experimental messy base of mental and subconscious intuiting. “Science” is a name for the process of producing half-baked or even in the case of modern string-theory physics fully-baked abstractions explanations without any applicability in “reality”. Beautiful theories in themselves but they remain theories because they are abstract images of a much more complex reality. In the age of “reason” man somehow came to think of “science” as more “precise” than that of the immediate complexity in the omni-present reality. Science is in fact just a little disputed name for what it is supposed to be signifying – knowledge. Knowledge is supposed to be distinguishably different from its antagonism, ignorance. But it is a simple, recorded fact that history shows more scientific “superstition” (in the full meaning of the word) than that of scientific “progress” – no mystery perhaps its the very nature of how “modern” science is supposed to progress. Superstition means simply that an old attempt of an explanatory model was wrong: it was possible to calculate results of movements in the Universe with a certain certainty, but for the wrong reasons. In the history of science, a load of “bad” explanations from different “paradigms” are discarded for a few, or single explanatory model (s) creating a new paradigm with better explanatory power. In the Kuhnian perspective science is a process of consensus, until as it goes the pendulum swings towards a new consensus. A psychologist for example might have little idea of the actual rationale for a mental decease but decides on a particular causal chain that supposedly is the disorder. Or for that matter a physicist might not know what dark (invisible) matter really is – why it is there. Since there is no way to finally prove or disprove something (only “justified belief”), we can believe a reasonable explanation as much as any other fictional account with a reasonable explanatory mechanism: the consensus decides. You only have to have enough people within a field believing it’s reasonable. We are still left with the intuitive factor that determines the best initial hypothesis providing the “approval” mechanism. Science is a not proof but unavoidably a justified and documented belief: that assumptions and simplifications provides a parallel and precise abstract picture of reality. The search for secure knowledge outside religious speculation and power struggles otherwise used for commercial interest. Or rather, this is how science is supposed to function. No doubt today’s reality is different: If we at all with any meaning can talk about a consistent, coherent “modern science” it has evolved into a process in where even the good old “rationalist” proof is a dinosaur of the past. As science becomes an impossibility of signification, fiction becomes increasingly an intimate part the scientific exploration. The contextual material of an illusive reality is supposedly basis for “knowledge”. Illusion is thereby already equated with knowing which in order brings the focus to what in politics is know as “spin”. This manic focus on the “face” has to cover up the underlying weak premises: Anything is done to alter and change results of experiments so a hypothesis is covered. This is why clusters of “believers” form and science becomes more and more a political game for publishing and big budgets. Instead of the “natural science” that attempts to understand “God’s creation” of the 18th century the foundation of modern science sees the Universe (and God) as a numb, randomised being without any consciousness – what kind of perspective shift are we experiencing here? In this ordered randomness everything is treated as chaotic (predetermined) probability. There is no “consciousness” present – even in man. As a necessary implication, the choice or intention of even “free man” is an illusion.
Ultimately
“science” becomes a symbolic method to ratify some conclusion or
determination - useful to a corporation, a government, an
organization or any other collegial bodies with a societal or
commercial agenda. Instead of gaining access to a much wider sense of
truth, scientific knowledge then easily descends into abstract,
fiction – a kind of obscure ignorance that can be utilised for what
ever means deemed necessary.