The expression of fortuitous happenstance

I must confess I'm often blessed in serendipity, and happy to share my blessing in the ebb and flow of resonance.

I've recently happened to chance up on PATH, a non-profit global health organization that: 

... dare to believe that innovation can change the world

As luck would have it PATH's vision is "a world where innovation ensures that health is within reach for everyone." You'll see the synchronicity if you read my recently updated app manifest for Stardeck, my own take on the age old public health conundrum of how to package the whole idea of "... improve the health of people around the world by advancing technologies, strengthening systems, and encouraging healthy behaviors."

As fait de compli I'd like to present you with the last of my app objectives, to monitor personal health with easy-to-use, app-on-board, state-of-the-art, clinical measuring instruments that would

• detect when you're stressed and advise you on a choice of stress reduction techniques
• suggest ways of managing stress when the app detect any chronic stress metrics
• inform you on how to eliminate stress completely by enrolling as a rookie in my no-patent-pending, open source, loads of gratuitous 
• public health goodness Stardeck Bootcamp Habituary.

I must admit I might even be a tad superstitious, some would even say obsessive about the whole experience of synchronicity, ascribing to the universal point of view that if a venture doesn't hum in harmony, it's a foregone conclusion that its not going to resonate, and if it doesn't resonate then it's most likely an idea that's just biding it's time to fortuitous happenstance.

Much like PATH above, and Lylith below, if you see what I mean.

Abomination to Nature

The term “Abomination to Nature” was recently mentioned in connection with our search for the bason quark. It is not a term that is used a lot, although there has been some people that have been described as such through history.

In this article I would like to focus on the practical implications of such a term and examine what it would mean for the existence of such an entity. One of the reasons that it does not get used often is because it is something that defies something of which we are an integral part.

The fact that there is still a big argument about things like evolution, the big bang theory or entanglement does not change the fact that they exist, and they do so in the interest of maintaining a system that was created by the word of God.

The theory that we are from nature, and have evolved beyond many other species on this planet is a testament to the perfect design of the system, and speaks more about how privileged we are in the grand scheme of things, as to how we are the crowning glory in a system where it is survival of the fittest.

The Big Bang Theory is probably an accurate account of the particle physics that occurred at the moment of creation, but it is the crowning glory of a large amount of research that has informed us about our world, how privileged our planet is to exist in the grand scheme of physics, mathematics and biological principles, that the mere argument of its existence is of no value whatsoever in our search for answers.

The existence of entanglement, a hotly contested theory about the particles that hold together all matter, is undeniable, and the fact that we have advanced technologically to the extent that we can actually observe it from happening is a testament to our technology, but it says nothing about our knowledge about the system in which we find ourselves, or our understanding of it.

And last of all the is the term “Abomination to Nature”. The fact that we can conceive of such a notion implies that it exists, but whether our technology has advanced to the level of actually observing such an entity, that is a matter open for discussion. A matter that would probably cease to exist as soon as we understand it.

Which is just the same as everything in life I suppose.

More on nature, laws and such...

It seems when looking for "laws" to help in defining nature and life that this is probably not the wisest thing to do, as the mere concept of "laws" still have some wrinkles to iron out. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, three issues are especially pressing ones.

The first concerns whether laws “govern” the universe, exactly what it means to say that they do, and how that affects our understanding of lawhood.

The second is the issue of whether there are any contingent laws of nature. Necessitarians continue to work feverishly on filling in their view, while Humeans and others pay relatively little attention to what they are up to; new work needs to explain the source of the underlying commitments that divide these camps and to figure what each group is doing right.

Finally, more attention needs to be paid to the language used to report what are the laws and the language used to express the laws themselves.

It is clear that recent disputes about generalizations in physics and the special sciences turn on precisely these matters, but exploring them may also pay dividends on central matters regarding ontology, realism vs. antirealism, and supervenience.

Three faces of reality

Reality is flawed. Not only by it’s definition, but also in it’s perception. According to the AskOxford definition of perception, it is the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses.

Perception is of Latin origin from the word percipere, meaning to seize or understand. While this may seem to infer some significance, explanation or cause based on information received, we must be cautious to assume that something is present or not based on our perception.

The reason why it is so difficult to define perception is that it changes from one moment to the next, and our mind has the ability to alter any sensory stimulus based on a variety of factors. They include things such as which half of our brain has control over sensory input at the time of awareness, how we feel at the time, the simultaneous or remembered presence of any emotion, any conscious or unconscious value that we may attach to the sensation and whether it is a shared experience. All of which take care of one face of reality as we know it. The next face put our awareness in perspective with everything else we have experienced, and provide us with an understanding of what we have perceived. The third ‘face’ that complete our experience of reality is our reaction to the awareness, based on our understanding of the sensory stimulus we felt. This not only changes our input, but may also change the factors that influence our perception. Considering all that has been said it is perhaps a bit harsh to say that reality is flawed, when in truth it just has more than one face. What we need to understand is to what level our perception is influenced by both conscious, as well as unconscious factors, factors that may or may not be under our control. We need to know that we lose our ability for rational thought and logical reasoning when we are emotionally triggered, and we need to accept the fact that there will never be a reality quite like our own.

..

Dubious distinctions

Take for instance the German Philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer that has the dubious distinction of being the most articulate and influential pessimist in the history of human thought. Reading through the commentaries on his work you will quickly understand why, and if you follow the impact that Schopenhauer had on those he touched in his life you may be quite amazed to see how he may very well be the great-great-great granddaddy of Heavy Metal Rock.

According to Schopenhauer:

We flourish only at each other's expense, and evil, pain, and suffering are not aberrations but express the inner nature of the world. Our will to live is a continuing cycle of want, temporary fulfillment, and more want. New desires replace any satisfied ones, so no lasting happiness is possible. There is no overall end or purpose of life, and our will to live is doomed ultimately to fail, and we die.

(Ok, after that intro the possible link between Schopenhauer and Heavy Metal may be much more obvious than I originally thought…;-)

I stand in awe…

Arthur was born February 22 1788. He died alone, of heart failure while sitting in his armchair at home. He was 72.

If you would like to know more, drop me a note!