Nonexclusion

As systems unfold in complexity, so do corresponding values of factoring equations. Ever since the first paradigms of measurement appeared in the human psyche, which demanded, simply enough, that phenomena be both observable and repeatable in order to catalog or record its influence, science has provided a framework of evaluation and analysis. Yet from within its own constraints and processes of discovery, like a great mythological Titan devouring its progeny, science precludes its own systems of knowledge. The physical universe, as we sense it for example, seems to be described quite elegantly by laws of Newtonian motion, yet this motion describes at best, only a practical experience of reality. Left long enough and without necessary sustenance, science may finally be unable to avoid devouring itself.

The intention of a formalized system of proofs, such as the scientific method, has always been a gradual unfolding of established and verifiable laws governing all known aspects or actions of the universe. To a modern sensibility it is reasonably understood, however, that there is no single or finite set of laws governing a totality of experience. What once was vehemently rejected as unnatural, contradictory to reason or doctrine, now is deeply rooted in the paradigm of a collective psyche. From a flat earth to geo-centric models of our solar system, worldviews have advanced small steps toward a more articulate attunement to a larger universal picture. Built one on top of the next, paradigms or worldviews are assimilated from norms of cultural and biological evolution, a shifting of awareness allowing breakthroughs of perception forcing new coherent worldviews to emerge. There is no inherent value in one paradigm above another, other than its function within a collective determinate or purpose. Most operate on undetectable levels and can only become visible when called into question by other emerging views, which contradict or challenge longstanding or previously unquestioned traditions.

Most observations, in the external world, are made directly. Direct observation allows for the immediate assimilation of information, which is experiential, tangible, and in some respect relevant to biological, geological, or even astronomical designs. Indirect observation, although less palpable, is equally viable in its ability to discern the effects of phenomena interacting within the universe. The Thought experiment, of course, proves to be a fruitful example of indirect observation. In their own way and in their own time, both Socrates and Einstein championed experiments of this nature. Before modern systems of analysis, it would seem that observation and thought occupied much of the same meaning, assuming the role of science was something more akin to philosophy, yet closer to religion than what we know of philosophy today. What Socrates directly observed becomes contained within an indirect observation of a larger universal function. Although Socratic thought remains undetached from its internal and external worldviews, it separates from contemporary understanding, just as a moral relativism is distinctly un-related to bijective functions of observable external phenomena.

Inherent to any system is the intention of that system working within the parameters of a given function. In relation to systems analysis, Einstein was able to make determinations involving an unseen subtle body of the universe with purely the mind’s eye of observation. The essential problem, according to Einstein, was the idea of motion (or gravity) in relation to its effect on light. Objects traveling at near light speeds demonstrated the breakdown or inversion of Newtonian logic - what was once a constant in the Newtonian universe is now a variable within Einstein’s field equation. The effect of Einstein’s new picture of the universe is systemic, yet almost unperceivable. The further development of ideas behind of general and special relativity, gravity and quantum mechanics deleted an existing paradigm, yet, even today only a tiny percent of any new paradigm is exposed.

We are faced with similar situations at present; what we know, or what we would like to think we know, is at odds (again) with the knowledge base of our 20th century worldview. It’s as if the paradigm shift of 100 years ago (Einstein’s field equation was written in 1909) is just starting to induce real applications in a real world still apparently run and ruled by the mechanical apparatus of the Newtonian clock. Nonexclusion demonstrates an overlay of quantum problems onto a dialog of contemporary concerns. In its broadest and most tangible sense, nonexclusion is simply the demonstration of probability; in its furthest reaches it becomes something more ethereal.