In the Wuh Lax world that I envisage, the control of errors is accomplished by continuously improving on the methods of solving and coping with challenges. We sometimes forget that our world is constantly changing, that all existence whether physical, ethereal, spiritual or formal, is subject to change because everything is as an aspect of process.
Continuous process as a descriptor of everything
In such a world, there are no laws, no constants, no ultimate barriers. The goals of science, the God or gods of religion, the forms of religious or spiritual experience are processes. Nothing really is but is by process. If there is no process there is nothing.
A Vacuum has No Process
A vacuum is a vacuum by virtue of its having no process to characterize it. Introduce a process and the vacuum is no longer a vaccum.
Process as the Only Law
Everything is being processed and everything processes. Even what seems not to process is processing. This is the only law of the universe. All other laws are subject to process and change. We may not measure the change but there is change and process, nevertheless. We may not measure the evolution in the process, but processes evolve and we may never know the direction by which they evolve or devolve.
As humans, we may share processes and compare experiences. Our respective realities are to others, however, virtual and unreal, like people playing in a computer simulation.
In Science and Religion There are Errors
Yes! Indeed, we do not have the perfect science nor the perfect religion. Man is not even rational, and rationalism is a pipe dream invented by people being irrational about reason. In any event, we need to improve on our science and our religion. It is only by continuously improving these that we will overcome the many errors that both embody.
Scratches to Sketches
Wednesday, 2 January 2008
On the One Hand, but On the Other Hand
At this moment, I feel very much like Larry David, when he holds out two hands. He is weighing what appear to be two alternatives, either the prescription from his doctor or the advice of his pharmacist which proposes an alternative prescription. The world is so made that we have alternatives, and it was my luck that I chose at a university age the science of alternatives, economics.
In this hand I have this alternative, but in this hand I have this other alternative
If you are not trained as an economist you perhaps will not appreciate what science there is in economics while at the same time appreciating what science is missing from economics. My bad luck was that I tried, in my own small way, to make economics less of a linear exercise and more scientific. The problem is that the whole field fails when one introduces science and technology. Most economists won't admit that there is a very serious problem, but there is a very serious problem with the notion that economics is a science. I found the science of economics to be more like a religion than a science despite its mathematical 'certainties.'
If you ever become an economist, you will appreciate what I mean when I say that the field is now esoteric and probably as esoteric as any religion. This is not to say that there are not practicalities in the economic field, its just that there are very few certainties. Where economics as a practical science succeeds it does so because it is able to incorporate the economic lessons of the past, make use of economic history, measure economic trends and economic potentials using statistics and econometrics.
Verification is all important in any scientific field, and in a field where there seems to be too much theory, too many assumptions, and too many conditions of an if then nature, more verification is like an act of God. Very few economists can verify all the ifs of their problem set. They can conjecture with maybe this or maybe that, but don't really know how to handle all the ifs.
Certainties and Uncertainties
What started me down this train of thought is the juxtaposition of two very important selected clubs of experts in modern society. One is the Group of Elders , the men of world peace, which includes such wonderful people as Jimmy Carter and Nelson Mandela, and the other is the Reality Group, the men of inventive science, which includes such speculative science people as Richard Dawkins and Paul Davies. So in my hands, I am weighing these two groups, one seems religious and one seems speculatively scientific. There are other groups that appear to be just brilliant.
As an economist, I could do the Larry David thing and think that on the one hand, we have The Elders and in the other hand, we have the Reality Group. Related to or embodying the Reality Group are the third culture people or The Edge people, which seems to include people like Lee Smolin, and then there are The Digerati that includes people like Bill Gates and Esther Dyson.
Fortunately, I realize that most people interact with many types of people, those with great heart, those with verifying minds, those that are doers and those that are thinkers. What an amazing mix the world of people is!
In My Non-Linear World, the Light World that I Occupy
On the one hand I am in control, but on the other I am not. It's a strange world.
On the one hand I must be like God, but on the other I must be nothing like God. I am amazing and yet I am insignificant. I am large and yet I am small. Who and what am I?
I did not choose to be born the person I am. I am fortunate to be born into the body that I possess, but don't really control, or if I do I must be a creature of light. I am grateful that I have so many fiends in the same boat as I am in, who did not choose to be born, but who are grateful that they were.
I am not sure that it matters whether I think this or that because I am what I am and I do not think that I have much choice in my reality, nor do I think many people have much choice. I do not think that my actions change my reality even though I am deluded into thinking that I experience a world which I can't possibly experience unless I am as fast as light. Maybe I am light. Wow! Me, a photon? Are you one too?
In this hand I have this alternative, but in this hand I have this other alternative
If you are not trained as an economist you perhaps will not appreciate what science there is in economics while at the same time appreciating what science is missing from economics. My bad luck was that I tried, in my own small way, to make economics less of a linear exercise and more scientific. The problem is that the whole field fails when one introduces science and technology. Most economists won't admit that there is a very serious problem, but there is a very serious problem with the notion that economics is a science. I found the science of economics to be more like a religion than a science despite its mathematical 'certainties.'
If you ever become an economist, you will appreciate what I mean when I say that the field is now esoteric and probably as esoteric as any religion. This is not to say that there are not practicalities in the economic field, its just that there are very few certainties. Where economics as a practical science succeeds it does so because it is able to incorporate the economic lessons of the past, make use of economic history, measure economic trends and economic potentials using statistics and econometrics.
Verification is all important in any scientific field, and in a field where there seems to be too much theory, too many assumptions, and too many conditions of an if then nature, more verification is like an act of God. Very few economists can verify all the ifs of their problem set. They can conjecture with maybe this or maybe that, but don't really know how to handle all the ifs.
Certainties and Uncertainties
What started me down this train of thought is the juxtaposition of two very important selected clubs of experts in modern society. One is the Group of Elders , the men of world peace, which includes such wonderful people as Jimmy Carter and Nelson Mandela, and the other is the Reality Group, the men of inventive science, which includes such speculative science people as Richard Dawkins and Paul Davies. So in my hands, I am weighing these two groups, one seems religious and one seems speculatively scientific. There are other groups that appear to be just brilliant.
As an economist, I could do the Larry David thing and think that on the one hand, we have The Elders and in the other hand, we have the Reality Group. Related to or embodying the Reality Group are the third culture people or The Edge people, which seems to include people like Lee Smolin, and then there are The Digerati that includes people like Bill Gates and Esther Dyson.
Fortunately, I realize that most people interact with many types of people, those with great heart, those with verifying minds, those that are doers and those that are thinkers. What an amazing mix the world of people is!
In My Non-Linear World, the Light World that I Occupy
On the one hand I am in control, but on the other I am not. It's a strange world.
On the one hand I must be like God, but on the other I must be nothing like God. I am amazing and yet I am insignificant. I am large and yet I am small. Who and what am I?
I did not choose to be born the person I am. I am fortunate to be born into the body that I possess, but don't really control, or if I do I must be a creature of light. I am grateful that I have so many fiends in the same boat as I am in, who did not choose to be born, but who are grateful that they were.
I am not sure that it matters whether I think this or that because I am what I am and I do not think that I have much choice in my reality, nor do I think many people have much choice. I do not think that my actions change my reality even though I am deluded into thinking that I experience a world which I can't possibly experience unless I am as fast as light. Maybe I am light. Wow! Me, a photon? Are you one too?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
YOU HAVE REACHED WOOH'S STREAM
The Internet User's Best Kept Secret
Sketches from scratches is a provocative blogspot that has grown out of the Wuh Lax experience. It is eclectic, which means that it might consider just about anything from the simple to the extremely difficult. A scratch can be something that is troubling me or a short line on paper. From a scratch comes a verbal sketch or image sketch of the issue or subject. Other sites have other stuff that should really be of interest to the broad reader. I try to develop themes, but variety often comes before depth.
... more!