a reply to: MKMoniker
The problem is, we seem to be reaching the physical limits of the fundamental blocks of knowledge we have built up our entire idea of reality
We now know the rules that govern the different layers of the universe (Sub-atomic through to classical Newtonian/General Relativity) and we
understand the sub-fields of these 'bandwidths' incredibly well.
When we look at any topic on the small-scale, from astronomy through to cellular biology, we can confidently answer all meaningful questions within
What we've realised more and more so over the last few decades, is that when we attempt to 'zoom out' and view a few of our pieces in synergy, our
understanding of them can fall apart.
Take gravity for example - as an alone fundamental we felt we cracked it years ago. The truth is, when we understood gravity in the context of the
other fundamental forces, it became nonsensical for gravity to be so weak and therefore we have had to start proposing ridiculous ideas such as
'leakages' from parallel universes.
We cannot explain how all of the universe's individual pieces simueltaneously came together in the form we actually perceive, because the way we have
individually described the origins and effects of these jigsaw pieces can ultimately be contradictory.
It returns to a simple paradox - the chicken or the egg? The plant or the seed?
You realise you need an additional process or rule, that covers both the chicken and the egg such that to allow them to individually yet
simultaneously form. Otherwise our understanding of either the egg, or the chicken, falls apart.
Likewise, the physicist mentions how the energy density of the space vacuum should, by understanding, cause one effect, yet we perceive a completely
different result, which can also be scientifically explained, meaning we need a common rule linking both of those sub-rules allowing them to, once
again, individually yet simultaneously form.
Now, when you start observing this all over the scientific fields, it becomes quite uncomfortable. I say this from personal experience as someone
who's spent a lot of time studying the physical sciences, both academically and at my own leisure.
It means you have to keep increasing the complexity of the universe by the virtue of our explanation (which is the opposite goal of the standard model
lol) and that also means we have to start considering potentially untestable effects on the universe and how to rationalise this (i.e. parallel
Or, it means you have to introduce intelligence. The rules were planned to work in conjunction like the way we have observed it, and hence a form of
conscious design was prevalent with the inception of the universe.
Neither of those two options is appealing to a scientist lol. It's a hard time to pursue the good art, for there are no clear leads as to what the
next 'step' is.
The truth is, we still don't actually understand the implications of quantum mechanics let alone how all the rules have worked in tandem to produce
apparently contradictory effects.
Of course, we will rise to the occasion provided we are not dead in the next 10,000 years.
However, isn't it interesting, that as humans, we can appreciate the meta-physical 'design' of the universe, and actually decipher it? Now, that's a
beautiful and timeless fact.
edit on 11-11-2014 by DazDaKing because: (no reason given)