Instead of splitting up into sects – science, open science, pseudo science – science should reconsider their basics. A most important aspect here is interdependency. The outcomes and values we find by measurement in system A do not tell us something about system A; they tell us something about a surrounding system B, in which context system A operates. The pecking order theory in the financial market does not tell us something about the financial market; it tells us something about a system B, being the collective behaviour of human beings on the financial market and how those human beings behave according to the pecking order. When we measure the gravity constant on a location on the earth and we measure the speed of light, we relate them, we find circa 3,3 X 10^-8 second. What does this represent? On the moon, you’ll find another value. What is this difference, what does it tell us? It tells us something about the system, the earth and the moon operate within, a system B, in which there obviously is a time difference between earth and moon. After a year, the clock on the moon will differ from the clock on the earth by circa 0.85 second. You could do the same with other constants, for example the Boltzmann constant and the water specific heat capacity. You’ll find about 3x 10^26 kg of water. What is this water? Where is it? Now the problem is, ask a scientist and he says ‘It’s not that simple’. It isn’t? Then what is wrong with our definitions, and especially with attributing dimensions to values and constants we measure?
It is extremely important to realize, it is something in a surrounding system B that is responsible for the values we observe in system A. It is in fact Curies Dissymmetry Principle that explains the arising of phenomena, and how they do not have any intrinsic existence, but are merely reflections of their cause. For example, a random mixture of sand in zero gravity has no dissymmetry. Introduce a gravitational field, then there is a dissymmetry because of the direction of the field. Then the sand grains can ‘self-sort’ with the density increasing with depth. But this new arrangement, with the directional arrangement of sand grains, actually reflects the dissymmetry of the gravitational field that causes the separation! So the forms we see, are not independently existing forms. In this example, they arose from the gravitational field and are just a reflection of this field. Therefore, we could for example ask ourselves: DO we actually live on a globe, or what would the earth look like if it wasn’t moving, and if it wasn’t subject to gravitational fields?
The same mistake is being made when representing the values we find. A simple example of this principle is graphic representation. We decided that pi=3,14… This value is based on a 2-dimensional representation of a straigth-lined square with length one; the resulting circle within measures our pi. Yet it is easily imaginable that the ‘true’ value of pi is simply 3. Just draw the square by hand, so it isn’t perfectly straight… why would those lines have to be perfectly straight anyway?
The behaviour of matter in the universe results in structures we observe; this behaviour is a result of impulses fed by (fields of) energy together with something we do not know: The particular KIND of behaviour resulting is the biggest question of all; algoritms within algoritms within algoritms. Patterns and associations; patterns and associations in a complicated web. A web of life and a web of learning; therefore, a web of growth and decay; adapting and dismissing. Creating and annihilating.
Seen in this light, wouldn’t it make sense for science to take the learning aspect more seriously on a very fundamental, physical level? As Einstein writes in ‘Physics and reality’ about quantum mechanics: ‘The incompleteness of the representation is the outcome of the statistical nature (incompleteness) of the laws.’ It could very well be, that the learning aspect is the missing link in finding the true nature of the laws.