The Evidence for and the Theory of Incompleteness

[austintorn@aol.com]

DEATH, DUST, AND TRANSFORMATION

All that we knew, even the loveliest and the best,
Decomposes into the dust of earth compressed.
Those songs we once composed now lie in repose;
With this dust the future may arrange and recompose.

[austintorn@aol.com]

CONVERSATIONS WITH THE COSMOS

The Universe whisper its secrets
To us from the CMBR, when light was born,
And before, if gravitational waves appear.

X-rays shriek with high pitched terror;
The infrared rains down its stories;
Gravity & dark energy run on through everything.

Cosmic rays pound us,
Even through the shelter of the sky;
Neutrinos slice through us,
Leaving no wound;
Gamma rays tickle us;
Dark matter tugs on us mysteriously.

We need the universal translator!

[melanie]

Hi Fredrick.

[Fredrick]

Well, the Earth had to begin at some point, with those two specs of "dust", then more and more clumping on.

Okay, we agree, except for word use, but maybe there is more to this than meets my eyes right now. Earth had to start out from the pre-solar-sys matter, so pieces of matter did start clumping. With earth, we know that some good parts of the previous-star state exist on earth.

But to call those first clumpings dust is beyond my comprehension. So, let's call that a 'possibly'.

The Frameworks I have been trying to discribe are all about matter positions and organizations. The Galactic, Solar, and Planetary frameworks are definitively all about matter found in some form of cooperation with one another. The Universal framework shows how at the overall level there is no total cooperation, and with the framework of dust the intention is at least to show that we do have matter at the smaller level that behaves differently yet again, independently as well. Unless picked up by wind or some sticky matter, dust is unmoved by other matter; it therefore does not behave like matter as found in the other frameworks.

Whether dust is a finished material 'product' is a good question. Do we know much about dust? Has it been investigated much? At what level do we talk about dust? Is dust from the Sahara not only blown and strewn out over other continents, but does it leave the planet as well?

Long story short: size does matter. Just like the gravitational field is no longer active-collective at the smallest levels, matter in the shape of dust does no longer follow the patterns of matter in the larger frameworks.

Ultimately, all matter including dust fits in one framework: the Universal framework. Here we find a certain overall 'freedom' (disconnection) not found with the smaller frameworks. However at the dust level, we find some of this disconnection back again. And we could say that freedom (disconnection) is actually quite an important aspect of dust.

As far as life is concerned, we are dust in the wind; we have the freedom (disconnection) not to be bothered too much by the other frameworks, even when we must abide by their demands — we most certainly also belong to the framework of dust.

[Fredrick]

Hi Fredrick.

That first one must be the pyramid of future events of the northern hemisphere or the pyramid of past events of the southern hemisphere, Melanie.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Specs of dust may be at or near the boundary of the quantum and the classical worlds.

Thoreau kept on seeing that the stuff on his mantlepiece was always getting covered with dust, so he threw it all out the window. Simplify, simplify, simplify.

[austintorn@aol.com]

THE FOUR ELEMENTS—AND DUST

From the fires of stars to those of cremation,
We have breathed, flourished, and dissolved:
Life is ashes to ashes, stardust to stardust.

Of airy winds, vapors, and a soft earth,
We rest, at last, under the spinning skies,
Those of Earth’s sunny days and starry nights.

[Fredrick]

You pose an interesting question, Austin, whether there are four elements plus dust. I would say not, and place dust in the 'earth/dirt' category. Yet wind and fire may play with dust, while water definitively absorbs dust.

The four+one frameworks I have mentioned are all about matter; they are not of matter. If we have matter, then we can distinguish five behaviors, and these behaviors are each themselves different. The human mind quickly jumps from one framework to another as if all is one, but that is just the mind, itself capable of overcoming the state of matter at the abstract level.

So, Austin, would you suggest there is a sixth framework: the Framework of the Mind.

Despite the claim of certainty that spirits guide and mislead us, we can scientifically only state that the outcome of the mind is present when encased in a material body. Without the material body, the spirit does not take part in the day-to-day reality (if and when it takes part). We can therefore say that:

1/ The Framework of the Mind is fully engaged at the level of the Planetary Framework.



We may be going out to space, but our precautions to travel outside earth's boundaries must be tremendous, and we can say that:

2/ The Framework of the Mind is fully engaged at the level of the material body.



Within the brain the signals are traveling between important connections, and we can say that:

3/ The Framework of the Mind is fully engaged with action and participation.



The brain is not an independent entity; it is found within a larger body and we can say that:

4/ The Framework of the Mind is fully engaged with the actions and inactions of the body.



With a body, multiple actions are possible, and to a large extent the brain is involved with making decisions to turn certain possibilities into reality and to let other possibilities be for what they are. Because the brain is involved with the larger path the body will follow, we can state that:

5/ The Framework of the Mind represents the center of freedom within the limitations of the larger frameworks.



Unlike the actual realization of matter, the brain can be tricked, misguided, and misled, and we can state that:

6/ The Framework of the Mind contains an escape hatch to areas that stretch out beyond matter.

[austintorn@aol.com]

…the brain can be tricked…

SUBJECTIVE TRAPS

Many of the subjectives that are based on
Outside incoming experiences
Can indeed work well, as well as those
Intellected and emotioned from the inside,
When they all have intermixed
Of what we've actually experienced as real.

Pure introspection, though,
Along with wishes and imaginations,
May come up with invisibles,
Spirits, and realms beyond,
As these may be satisfying.

It becomes gospel because one
Is not privy, aware, or knowing
About all the hundred billion neurons
At work below,
Each with thousands of connections,
As these are the telling states
Beneath the lived state of being;
And, so, introspection, alone, cannot suffice,
For it believes that it is all there is,
That it is the one and only source of truth,
That since it thought the thought,
It must be true,
For only the enlightened few
Can disregard their own thoughts.

So, science is required,
To completely inform us all
Of all becoming known,
And use it to sort out the mind’s pitfalls.

[Fredrick]

…the brain can be tricked…

SUBJECTIVE TRAPS

So, science is required,
To completely inform us all
Of all becoming known,
And use it to sort out the mind’s pitfalls.

That is an interesting set-up, Austin. I almost agree with you, because I, too, view science as the most-appropriate 'neutral' tool to understand everything.

Yet I must acknowledge that science is based on prerequisites created by people and by the environment from which information is gathered and by the instruments and methods that gather the information. So allow me to correct you slightly here:

When scientists acknowledge the limitations on which science is based, scientists can then inform us correctly from these positions about the fields they investigated.

I hope that correction is acceptable to you. Please remember that science is not a single entity, but a collective of people, of fields of study. Each and every set-up is by definition a limitation. The incompleteness -we all agree- belongs to the overall reality of our universe, and this reality of incompleteness also applies to science. Interestingly, that what cannot be recreated is ordinarily not accepted as scientific information. And yet, while the universe's beginning cannot be recreated, it is nevertheless accepted in science as fundamental. So, what normally is rejected by scientists is accepted at the largest of realities in science. I should therefore ask you to not place any single reality in the top seat, because even in science ignorance does exist. Some would not use the impolite word 'ignorance' and prefer to replace it with 'exceptional'. The mood I am in right now, I'd say: same difference.

Also, even that what is truly incorrect, but that is nevertheless a benefit in nature, will be replicated, will be used, and will then have become part of nature. Logic rules, but the logic is based on the outcome, not on the basics of logic (unless the outcomes are the basics of logic).