Thursday, December 29, 2011

Particles are nothing more than cognitive syntheses...



http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/opinion/cosmic-uplink/heads-tails/articleshow/11287047.cms


Particles are nothing more than cognitive syntheses/structures of the fields’ sustainability rhythmic dynamics.

To speak of a measurement/quantification of particles is a gross nonsense, one can speak of perception/interpretation in the sense that the quanta express an enactive nature of the fields’ strategic dynamics of sustainability.

As to the particle and field proposed by Higgs, it may at most correspond to dynamics that may have taken place at a certain temporal rhythm of this reality we call cosmos, signalized at a beginning. To think that it is possible to reconstitute that beginning is a scientific nonsense, it is to ignore or overlook the role of the spontaneity dynamics in the sustainability of the systemic integrity as permanence, which depend upon the game occurred in a simultaneity dynamics of a temporal flux from the future to the present now, let us call it future now. The game of existence/life is, thus, strongly linked to the systemic spontaneity.

If it is true that there is a dependence from the past as memory, as experience, the present does not come from the past, the present comes from the future. Each moment now came from the future and never from the past.

That which is signalized as mass has to do with the gravitic dynamics that intervene in any cognitive synthesis: mass is enacted in that synthesis.

More mass or less mass depends upon the nature of the relations: links/connections, rhythms of the links/connections, autopoietic self-sustained strategies, dynamics in the retension/protension...

What can we know? What can we do? How can we know how to survive? How can we survive?

In the end, we are going around in circles, forgetting the fundamental, which are the questions: what is existence? What is life? In fundamental terms, what is the relation between existence and life? Can one reduce being to existence and existence to being? What is that thing that we call being (noun) and being (verb) and that is common to all things there (?): I am, you are, we are: the being (noun) is being (verb)...,




Monday, December 5, 2011

"chemical scum"...,

Tendrils of cold dust

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2010-087

«The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among hundreds of billion of galaxies. We are so insignificant that I can't believe the whole cosmos exists for our benefit. That would be like saying that you would disappear if I closed my eyes.»

Hawking interviewed by Ken Campbell (1995).

One of the best dixit from Stephen Hawking! (Perhaps, however, the term "race" is not a good term, the term "species" is a better term.)

It is not only the human organisms that are self-sustained "chemical scum", it may be pertinent to state that: all life is "chemical scum".

Biochemics is enacted by a electrochemical gravitic mix, the "scum"/humus is the enacted substance.