[8]
previous / next slide
For if every thermodynamic process needs a source and a sink to level out the potential between these two, but cannot produce that potential precisely because of this, then the origin of all sources and sinks cannot be thermodynamic (this would violate the prohibition of a perpetuum mobile).
How, then, did energy and movement come about in the universe?
As long as God could be taken as the external, non-physical source of all being, all events, all life, order and creation, there was nothing to think about; the omnipotence of God was the answer and solution to every paradox.
However, when science itself came up with the demand for a purely scientific, secular view of the world, it became in need of a different explanation; but instead of directly addressing the issue of the universal generation of order, of sources and sinks, science went into detail, dismantling matter into ever smaller particles, in search of a (possibly non-existent) world formula, i. e. for secularized, absolute knowledge and thus god-like power - which closed the circle to religion at this point, but in reality left a void.
The result was scientific disorientation.
As someone once put it, scientists are reluctant to ask questions for which they don't have, at least, a general idea as to where the right answer might lie; in fact, anything else would be uneconomical.
They are therefore, like any other group, trapped in paradigms; and again, seen historically, over time, about half of their views have been proven to be wrong as well; indeed, proving itself wrong is science's core business.
However, this error rate has been distributed unevenly across the individual sciences; it may well be that abstract mathematics has so far been the one field that has remained without a major revision. But even within physics, up to now, old views have had to be discarded, such as those of reversible mechanics and absolute time.
In any case, the quest for the source of all existence proved to be difficult, and many scientists preferred to pursue it privately, if at all - probably in part so as not to mess with the "powers that be" which they also served; there was nothing to gain, as the results could not be proven. Instead, as everywhere, there were several, contradicting ideas in rapid succession, a commitment to any which one serving to differentiate oneself from the others.
Only a handful dealt publicly with the notion that, according to one valid assumption, reality can neither be empty, nor contradictory or paradoxical; if it seems to be so, the error is therefore to be found in its description: Something there is missing - or is superfluous.
Those who did dare venture there, like perhaps Schrödinger and Hawking, among others, were prone to receive the status of outsiders, who may have wandered a bit too close to that fine line between genius and madness.
For, according to rumors, the "scientific community", like any other, tolerates no deviants; and here and there pressure is said to have been exerted to recant certain incriminated passages that "conflicted" with the accepted view - such as Schrödinger's thesis that, with food, not energy, but rather order and structure (or negentropy) is imbibed, to counteract physical decay, especially that of the body cell's DNA; an approach that can be expanded to include the idea that the release of energy is a secondary effect, evoked by the dissolution of the structure containing it; and in fact, the effect of energy, directly exerted on living beings, is often detrimental - and not nutritious.
It seems the failure to fully comprehend and implement the implications of the discoveries of the industrial age can lead to some very paradoxical results.
previous / next slide
Comments
Post a Comment