From STEM To R.E.M.: Towards A Synthesis of the Macro & Microcosmic

Towards A Synthesis of Macro & Microcosmic Bodies of Knowledge

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or introduced into a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or by any means (including electronic, photocopying, mechanical, manual or otherwise) without the prior express & written consent of the owner of the copyright of this book.

©2024 Valerie Lynn Stephens

From STEM To R.E.M. Towards A Synthesis of Macro & Microcosmic Bodies of Knowledge

Preface:

Are the Microcosmic & The Macrocosmic Truly Mutually Exclusive?

Are the microcosmic and the macrocosmic realms as mutually exclusive and unrelated as they seem? Perhaps it is the inherent tendency of homosapien cognitive bias to adopt models of so-called reality to falsely (or merely imprecise) Boolean logarithms of this or that. Because here is one thing that even the most practiced and educated STEM enthusiasts have observed: The second Law of Thermodynamics has experimentally and consistently demonstrated the increasing tendency of 'nature' as we know it to seek entropy (or non-readily observable and measurable organization) over simplicity and predictability. Now, mind you, this is a reference to quantum uncertainty and fluctuations in the so-called fermionic 'Higgs-field', which some would assume bears no relation to the macroscopic (or cosmic) order of things-nevertheless, I do not concur. It is far more sound and intuitive to presume an inherent 'irreducible complexity' and interrelation of all living and active systems.

On note, perhaps that is why for most of our days, life seems stultifyingly boring and mundane. And perhaps this is because we cannot readily access happenings upon the so-called 'quantum' scale. Because this, ladies & gents, is a hotbed of activity! Yes, this is a definite limitation of human neuro-anatomy and perceptivity. This is also perhaps why we can be so easily misled into all sorts of biases and in the worst case scenario-psychoses or in the even worst-case-scenario: Psychopathologies. That is to say, our species seems to be vulnerable to a conflagration of 'appearance reality' with 'what's-actually-going-on'.

Furthermore, perhaps what we human-kind classify as questions and answers or models of morality are way more subtle & 'subatomic' than we think, in both form AND function.

Moreover, this may indeed segue into more 'metaphysical' and perhaps even mystical matters of free will, morality & even...a possible soteriological and eschatological realm. That is to say, perhaps our current choices within these current 'mind-body-dualing' inhabitancies are exerting a certain ordering upon the subatomic field. To be fair, this is not all mere conjecture. Indeed, some discoveries that most scientists back in the 18th century named "laws", are by today's standards no longer considered to be extant.

Interestingly, a lot of discoveries that were called "laws" in the 'infancy' of post-modernist realms of what used to be referred to as 'natural philosophy' are now appreciated as steps upon the ladder of human inquiry. Today, as of 2024, legitimate scientists refer to most current discoveries as "theories", rather than "laws", although some discoveries called "laws" back in the time that they were recorded, are still extant & referred to as "laws." Indeed, if you hear a respectable scientist use the word "theory" to describe the most current model of the natural world, be rest assured that your fallible human mind is in good hands. A theory, by today's standards is the best model that we currently have, based on 'hard' scientific due diligence, to describe at least, 'physical' reality (or the perception thereof). But that...is a whole other story, right!

In addition, a more accessible metaphor could be drawn from what geneticists refer to as "phenotype vs. genotype." Simply put, "genotype" is an organism's "physical appearance", and "genotype" is the actual 'in totem' genetic makeup of a human individual. And that's not even touching upon the myriad sociological (and often deleterious) effects of said "surface interpretations." Humans seem to be hard-wired for the quickest and easiest path towards self-preservation and thrivance, both individually and collectively. That explains, in part, why they will "judge on appearances." After all, doesn't it seem that most persons will not only find it not only easier but much more sociologically beneficial to categorize a human person based upon entrenched socio-political biases and preconceptions rather than exposing oneself to the vulnerable position of intellectually integral self-reflection?

In essence, what I am referencing is the epistemological limitations of not only human perception, but also technology when exploring our known world in search of life's big answers. With that said, however, most of our current "theories" are based in 'hard' science & rigorous methodology. Nevertheless, the quest for that ultimate Rosetta Stone known as "Grand Unified Theory" continues with more & more syntheses being achieved as time marches on. Indeed, as human beings begin to observe the complementarity &, even interconnection of the so-called macroscopic or cosmic versus the quantum or 'subatomic' realms, perhaps humanity will achieve a Grand Unified Theory.

Moreover, it is becoming compellingly evident that all phenomena-and even perhaps 'noumena', are not disparate features of the natural or the perceptual world. And even those staunchly skeptical of even granting an agnostic consideration of anything not verifiable in the Large Hadron Collider or in any other scientific laboratory, must, on some level, be tempted to give sway to the possibility that verities outside the purely physical & existential realms are operant and perhaps even supreme. After all, to put a spin on the old scientific adage: "Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence." I contend that the absence may be evidence itself, in some cases. That is to say, perhaps the very fact that we could never directly observe certain phenomena, such as 'God' for instance, due to 'Him' or 'Her' or 'It' necessarily being composed of lethal energial forces, this, while it may not prove the actual existence of such an entity, may provide some epistemological mitigation.

In this work, we shall explore the various bodies of scientific knowledge, including within some of the so-called 'soft' science disciplines, & attempt to integrate them with various faith-based or theological & philosophical viewpoints & beliefs. I have always been a firm advocate of agnostic flexibility over rigidity, as I believe this to be the most humble & honest approach to the big questions of this human condition & existence. I am also a keen observer of the patterns & obvious connections which underlie all that we see, hear, feel & sense, both physiologically & neurologically. There is an undeniable pull towards a meaningful rhyme & reason behind all that we experience as human persons. And I don't think it fair or accurate to classify this as mere "wishful or 'magical' thinking", as the nihilists propose. This assumption & dismissal is immediately revealed in its own fallaciousness when we observe how the capacity for dreaming & meaning-seeking seem to be inherent tendencies built into our very design as a species.

That is to say, we can't help but search for the meaning behind this or that. Therefore, this is actually an argument for profundity as actuality itself-not a negation thereof, nor is it proof of spurious superficiality or foolish notions. Nevertheless, I digress.

In finale, no matter where one places oneself on the spectrum of atheism or agnosticism-or even dogmatism, whether religious or scientific, anyone with enough healthy curiosity and open-mindedness, can hopefully take away something of epistemological & existential value from this book. So, let us begin...

Part 1 soon to come.......