#3: Education (logic, knowledge; intuition and wisdom)

This is the 7th post. In the first post it was suggested that within 7 posts the direction this blog will be taking should become clear (not just to the reader, but to myself also).

Initially it was supposed to be a comment under #2 (6th post) but would not fit as a single comment.

Thanks to an eagle-eyed reader (M.A. physicist by education) who pointed out the total lack of mention of education.

A neat practical method to distinguish between logic, knowledge, intuition and wisdom can be considered in EDUCATION.

It makes perfect sense that intuition does not rely on education... however my understanding suggests that logic too, in its pure essence, is not taught via education or learnt from experience but is an innate and natural predisposition to arrive at knowledge (or "KNOW" something) given a few basic apriori principles.

Logic weaves the apriori principles into a fabric of knowledge. This weaving process is perfected via trial and error, practice, and can be mastered via education. Logic is a broad term that encompasses many mental acrobatics (albeit infallible) and as in driving which we summarise in a single word, it contains the mastery of many muscles and eye-hand coordination and spatial awareness and routes and understanding of the language of the road and cars (flashing lights, road signs, indicators, turning left, reverse parking, the movement of the neck and hands and the slight depressing of the accelerator etc).

Now you may argue that driving is taught. And it is learnt. Thus the skill of driving is obtained via education. However, the predisposition to drive, and the capacity all exist. Otherwise when humans first created the car, who taught the first driver how to drive? Just as in the history of driving, it is the collective experience of mankind that perfects our ability to use our logic.

And knowledge is built from apriori principles (Which are not discussing here). Thus knnowledge is innate also. But it can be taught too. Once we invent the wheel, there is no need to keep inventing it every century - this is where education comes in.

In the present time, however, education seems to have engulfed our academic existence and pre-occupied us.

Intuition is logic from a different, broader angle. If the smallest element of the smallest scale of understanding i.e. logic is an electron Coulomb of charge, then the electric field is knowledge. And as the single electron traverses space-time, its magnetic field is intuition. Wisdom is the observation of such a phenomenon, its understanding as a whole and single phenomenon (despite the endless books written on each of the above concepts, after the grasp of such, wisdom would be the encapturing of all the above charge, electric field and magnetic field phenomenon as a single happening and inevitably linked event).

(Charge is a fundamental property of particle, as current thought/science (ie expert body of knowledge) suggests. Hence its analogy as the logic which is fundamental in our mind. Place a positively charged particle in the vicinity of an electron and the once invisible electric field becomes perceivable through the movement of the particle(s). Not that the field has any sort of existence outside of our mind, but that its derivation arises directly through deduction from the charge - hence its analogy with knowledge. Intuition is thus logic, but from a different frame of reference; from a higher, faster, limitless frame of reference the charge of the particle no longer has any significant individual existence but it is an arbitrary thought. From this limitless frame of reference the charge and electric and magnetic fields are the one and the same. This is then wisdom. And arriving at it utilises intuition. Both of which are more difficult to convey from the Broca's area of our brain compared to logic and knowledge.)

See also Poincare on intuition: he too is of the opinion that education in schools is suppressing intuition.

In school, when we learn, we should always balance it with our internal intuition. To do this requires hours and hours of silent contemplation, alone, about otherwise simple matters. Once we have unearthed our own intuition (which is easier done with feedback from logic and what the great academic aforetime have written) then we can adjust our understanding of what we are taught to fit with our intuition...(if we learn an equation but do not envisage what it would imply intuitively then there is no benefit in learning it) instead of learning something new all the time ("fish"), once we have polished our intuition it will be more deadly that all the facts we have learned ("learning to fish").

Bisillah.

#2: Examples on Wisdom (and counter examples of wisdom)

" In Plato's Apology, Socrates and his friend Chaerephon, visit the oracle at Delphi. As the story goes, Chaerephon asks the oracle whether anyone is wiser than Socrates. The oracle answers “No, Socrates is the wisest person.” Socrates reports that he is puzzled by this answer since so many other people in the community are well known for their extensive knowledge and wisdom, but Socrates claims that he lacks extensive knowledge and wisdom. Socrates does an investigation to get to the bottom of this puzzle. He interrogates a series of politicians, poets, and craftsmen. As one would expect, the Socratic grilling reveals that those who claim to know either did not really know any of the things they claimed to know, or else they knew far less than they proclaimed to know. The most knowledgeable of the bunch, the craftsmen, knew quite a bit about their craft, but they claimed to know things far beyond the scope of their expertise. Socrates, so we are told, neither suffers the vice of claiming to know when he does not know nor of claiming to have wisdom when he does not have wisdom. "

[http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/wisdom/]

Wisdom as Epistemic Humility is mentioned and briefly presented in the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy from the above Socratic example. What it utilises is the small-scale sharp and infallible tool of logic in order to attempt to deduce epistemic humility as a foundation for wisdom. My humble intuition suggests that one or two paragraphs are insufficient (regardless of how efficient and ground-breaking they may be) in order to weave the small scale logical arguments into an organised knowledge and fashion it into a definition of wisdom. What the passage lacks is an appeal to the author's intuition. Without intuition the small scale logic will not transform into wisdom - not to mention knowledge of wisdom.

Unlike the example in the comments of the previous post (where Einstein begins with a holistic wisdom in his mind and then reconstructs it from logical first principles), the above argument begins with humility theory i.e. propsed conclusion (not true knowledge let alone wisdom).

"S is wise iff S believes S does not know anything." is suggested as the second humility theory (ignoring that the word "anything" is illogically deduced; it would have been better to say "everything"). This statement alludes to an intuitive notion, or an old (wo)man's tale, that wise men speak little and listen much. As discussed in the previous post, wisdom without its small scale counterpart (logic) is unable to communicate details to others due to barriers in language. And one who possesses wisdom, is so engulfed in serenity and calmness and wonder that he is left speechless and attentive to something residing within of much greater value.

Thus the amended "S is wise iff S believes S does not know everything" may have an element of truth, but its justification is not logical - thus it is not true knowledge. (knowledge = infallibly justifiable true belief. see comment to previous post).

-----

[[[May it be possible, that with a direct link from an individual to another individual, from a link from one mind to another mind, from brain to brain, from neuron to neuron ... that wisdom can be conveyed directly without any language or logic or knowledge as preludes?]]]

-----

Four examples of wisdom in the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy are discussed.

The Wisdom as Epistemic Accuracy arguments also fall into the

logic -->knowledge

example highlighted above. After the distinction attempted in the previous post between knowledge and wisdom:

logic(1) --> knowledge(1)

[sum of (from n=1 to n=infinite; logic(n)-->knowledge(n)] ---(intuition)---> Wisdom

...wisdom cannot be attained through logical formulations of knowledge alone.

The third argument (Wisdom as Knowledge) also falls short of the above model. It is mentioned that "S is wise iff S knows how to live well."

All the above arguments: Wisdom as humility, as accuracy and as knowledge of how to live well are not wisdom itself per se, but merely a consequence thereof.

It must not be forgotten that wisdom here is being used in its broadest sense. Just as there is knowledge of an historic event, knowledge of quantum physics and knowledge of deep sea organisms, there exist wise (wo)men whose wisdom may be restricted to one or more domains.

And the fourth argument states:

"S is wise iff (i) S knows how to live well, and (ii) S is successful at living well." (Wisdom as knowledge and action).

Again, this action is simply a consequence of human motivation.

In the brain, we sense through the five senses (sensation) and depending on exact circumstances we feel emotions as a result (if a stranger kisses us we may be repulsed and sad but if a loved one does we may feel an emotion of warmth and happiness). Emotions are processed and contribute to motivation, which leads to motor action (push the stranger away, kiss the loved one back) and a cumulation of action determines our behaviour.

Where does Wisdom fit in the above emotion/motivation?

Read Socrates' story again at the first paragraph of this post. Do not analyse it further. Did you get an overall picture of what wisdom may be? Wisdom is not described in the passage. Its effects, and the behaviour of one who possesses it is described, however.

Wisdom is knowledge that is not bound in time nor space. If knowledge of an historic event is the retelling of the story in its precise chronological order as revealed in time, then Wisdom is the mention of one word, a single word, which represents the beginning, middle, end and moral of the story and guides the bearer of wisdom towards making a decision or understanding a current phenomenon encountered by the bearer of wisdom. Wisdom is the mind map, mind image, and mind story, which in one flash of thought remembers the beginning and middle and end of the story and is left speechless where to begin to convey the story from a small scale level.

We must appeal to our intuition (transformative mind-process) to convey the logical, chronological (bound in time) story above and teach us on wisdom. Small scale logical arguments would not suffice (or will be very messy and long).

Thus what we lack is an understanding of intuition which seems to be the key in our understanding in general, and our transformation from knowledge into timeless wisdom.

The last few centuries have seen a revolution in logic, and its principles have been discussed and argued to near perfection; creating a vast body of knowledge which has produced innumerable technological "miracles".

What the present generations must do is revolutionise our fundamental understanding of intuition, and the laws it is based upon. Such an imagination may not only help us understand ourselves better, but may yet prove useful in other fields (conscioussness, space-time fractals, wisdom).

Think of intuition as Maxwell's electromagnetic equation: it neatly summarises the 2 aspects of a single force. Bring in the electro-weak theory and we summarise 3 aspects of one thing. A charge that moves in space and time reveals another aspect of its intrinsic existence: that of a magnetic field. The magnet and the charged particle are views of the same thing from different zoom levels, different perspectives. So too are Logic, Knowledge and Wisdom: 3 aspects of understanding and truth (or understanding of truth I am not sure which). Intuition is the unifying transformation. To it we should attend.

-----

[[[Why are sleepless nights conducive to intuition? Too tired for logical thought? Or easy to be deceived and hallucinate in the dark?]]]

-----

#1: Knowledge, Logic; Wisdom, Intuition

Peace be upon you.
I pray you have assured peace, total serenity, and are at complete ease.

The central question that will be addressed is: What is the nature of Wisdom and Intuition? What is the difference between Knowledge and Wisdom?

Semantics: are Knowledge and Wisdom similar or different?

I am led to believe that a Doe can mean a female antelope or deer.
In contrast, St. Anne and St. Hannah refer to the same venerated female.
(The latter exemplifies that different words may in essence represent the same entity.)

Knowledge. Wisdom. (Intuition.)

When we encounter different words or the same words in different contexts, which become difficult for us to clearly differentiate between their meaning and unanimously agree upon, we must ask:

Are they Doe-Doe-words or Anne-Hannah-words?


(There are other derivatives of the above, e.g. Jesus and 'Isa; which originally and in essence represented the same entity ("Anne-word"). However, in time, they were regarded differently by the people who used the respective languages to refer to him. Whereas Jesus died on the cross for millions of people, 'Isa was raised to heaven and was not killed for millions of others ("doe-word").)

How can we differentiate accurately and in a meaningful manner between the concepts of knowledge and wisdom (and what role does intuition play - or does it play any at all)? [not to mention logic or reason] Are Knowledge and Wisdom Anne-Hannah words or do they represent individually distinct concepts?


Why ask the question: what is the difference between Knowledge and Wisdom?

The pleasing nature of this question is the nested implications: in differentiating between the above words, do we use knowledge (logic), or wisdom (or intuition)?

There are many answers - more than all of human history's lifetimes combined could be spent and yet there will be more answers to seek. Hence it is imperative to ask the right questions. Besides the existential and survival questions, the question "what is the difference between knowledge and wisdom" is one of the most important we will encounter. You may suspect that your question is an intriguing and consequential one when the question you are asking, and the method you use to answer it, are congruent with the answer and can be used to better understand other phenomena (be they other questions or other answers).

Enough of abstract. A few shocking examples may clarify and prevent you from clicking the mouse away from this site.


Nested / Fractals / Symmetry

1. A pentagon with alternate corners connected to each other and iterated will produce successively smaller pentagons. And its 5 lines of symmetry will remain intact.
[look at the picture: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reiterative]

Certain iterative equations, fractals, produce patterns that we perceive as pleasing to observe.

2. How can approximating the area of a circle teach us about understanding infinity and differentiating between logic and intuition?

(axiom: calculating area of isosceles triangles before the discovery of "pi".) Draw a circle radius r. Within it draw 4 isosceles triangles and area of 4 triangles = 2(r^2). (circle will have a greater area). Now draw 8 which will give a better approximation... and continue... you will see a pattern which you will trust will continue no matter how many times you make smaller and smaller triangles... continue with patience and you will see that the area of circle can be approximated by a converging but never-ending nested root equation ..which goes on until infinity... whose limit is what we know simply as the Greek letter "pi".
[see second equation down: mathworld.wolfram.com/NestedRadical.html]

The above facts used to approximate "pi" assume two angles of an isosceles triangle are equal; intuitive to accept if we trust symmetry. Logically proven by Euclid. Without the logical proofs, there would be no certainty nor consistency and everything else would fall apart. And trust in the pattern of the nested roots is intuitive, the smaller the triangles and the more the number of triangles, the closer the approximation to the area of a circle... but to logically prove it without a doubt is more difficult. ("intuitive" is used loosely in the above sentence.)


Logic as a check for intuition

A pre-requisite for discussing knowledge and wisdom is the precise understanding of their little siblings: logic and intuition respectively.

Once logic has proven the theorem, we can present it to our intuition so that it may devour it and internalise it. Future calculations are eased. Every time we use this fact we have saved a lot of time and redundant calculations. Logic has got us started, and intuition has now taken over. If we fall into trouble, we must recognise and be able to go back to utilise logic in order not to over-rely on intuition.

Intuition is our perceived car speed, and logic is the check (i.e. the dashboard number) telling us how fast we are going.

Infinity (in the English language) is a loose concept (whereas in mathematical language it is a precise concept). pi represents an infinity as alluded to above. square root of 2 also represents an infinity of some sorts: it cannot be represented in fraction or finite decimals - technically referred to as an irrational number. Yet we can convince ourselves that there exists one "number" between one and two when multiplied by itself it yields precisely the number 2. This is represented by square root of 2 - which is nothing more than mathematical language: the shorthand of the above long form. (If we have an incorrect understanding of numbers as natural counting numbers; our intuition would be corrupted and we couldn't envisage a sq.root of 2. But with the understanding that natural numbers may only be a smaller subset of a larger group of numbers including the existence of that sq.root of 2 - despite our initial lack of understanding of its existence. We can get to know and understand sq. root of 2 by conversing with it in mathematics: i.e. using it in our mathematical language to see how it behaves and if the language it speaks reflects that which we observe in the real world).

(Intuition may be considered to fail alone when it comes to imaginary numbers, but wisdom when applied to logic (W--> --> L) might suggest why not consider a number when multiplied by itself would yield negative 1. It is experience, and not logic or intuition, that finds it hard not to reject this concept. Wisdom inherently is creative and trusts in intangible and unseen numbers and forces).

It can further be proven that there exists more numbers between zero and 1 than all the natural numbers counted to infinity (1,2,3,4,5...infinitely). Thus there are different levels of infinite. As you begin to start to count all real numbers from 0 to 1 - just when you think you have found the smallest number (0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000001) to begin counting, you find and even smaller one
(0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001) and your starting point is never within reach (aleph-one). Whereas when counting all natural numbers from 1 up to infinity you begin: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, .... and you have at least begun your journey (aleph-zero).

Now the proof that aleph-one (0 to 1) is larger than aleph-naught (1,2,3 to infinity) is a serious one in mathematical set-theory. We have used infinity in a lose manner to illustrate the concept. But if you cannot begin to count aleph-one then surely it must be "larger" than aleph-naught... I have appealed to your intuition to grasp and accept it. However, having used many unfamiliar terms (real, rational, natural numbers, infinity) you may accept this is true - but you will never be sure without seeing the logic behind it (see Cantour for the logic).

Thus you can check your intuitive understanding by using logic. Both are a method and form of understanding.


Using Logic and Intuition to differentiate between Knowledge and Wisdom.

Now to differentiate between knowledge and wisdom and intuition, we must use a combination of them to understand, differentiate, and then express their differences. It may seem a futile endeavour: circulatory, nested and unenlightening. The outcome, however, is as beautiful and significant as the elegance of "pi" or "e" which is found in nature, difficult to logically arrive at, yet important in every aspect of nature and our environment. With the only difference that in our case, we begin with the condensed concepts of "knowledge" and "wisdom" and wish to elaborate and arrive at the never-ending nested roots.

Just to reiterate the importance of intuition and wisdom, which seems to have been neglected, or even denied in the modern era: as I am not a mathematician, read from a mathematician how intuition guides much of logical deduction and proofs and should be highly-regarded:

Poincaré on intuition in Mathematics:
http://www.gap-system.org/~history/Extras/Poincare_Intuition.html


Knowledge as an organised body of Logic

* a compilation of rational facts and logical arguments make up knowledge about a certain topic.

* if logic is every knot of thread in the hands of a knitter; the resulting jumper is a body of knowledge.


Wisdom as a super-symmetrical transformation of Knowledge

* wisdom is the integration of several bodies of related or un-related knowledge into a holistic understanding which can far exceed the sum of logical combinations of the bodies of knowledge. Wisdom is often viewed as running in parallel to knowledge. Whereas this is usually the case, wisdom can also encompass knowledge and more. Wisdom is what is produced in the character and mannerisms and understanding of a person (sage) with an observant, humble, intuitive, and different look and wonder at a common phenomenon. Is it not intriguing that a beautiful "celestial" body with perfect curves such as the circle, has inherent within it an "ugly/messy" irrational number: pi? The intrigue of this makes pi inherently wonderous and pleasing. (alternative example: e and its role in radioactive decay. )

Logic deciphers the action potentials, current, ions fluxes in a single cardiac myocyte. Logic can, theoretically, combine millions of cells and integrate their action potentials in time and space to produce an overall cardiac activity trace and this can then be interpreted within the produced body of knowledge to interpret the trace... this is that of the ECG. But ask a doctor why you get ST depression and then elevation in the ECG of a patient underdoing a heart attack and you might be surprised: rarely are they aware that there even is a scientific explanation. Partly due to lack of knowledge of elementary physics and electronics, but also due to the difficulty in integrating all myocyte depolarisations and repolarisations which are spatially and temporally out of phase. Despite theoretically possible to logically deduce, in practice the "statistical" behaviour of depolarisations and errors in measurement make it very improbable. However, a single 3 or 12-lead ECG trace can summarise all the events and be interpreted correctly most of the time with minimal training.

In this example, the doctor-interpreted ECG is wisdom applied to logic (W--> --> L), myocyte action potentials are individual knots of thread of logic. The combined action potentials of all myocytes is a body of knowledge.


Intuition as a process, a function, and a transformation

* intuition is a function, a process, a transformation. If understood and used skill-fully, it can be applied to fast-track us from logic to knowledge, and from knowledge to wisdom. With incorrect evaluation of empirical data and experience, intuition may be altered and can mis-guide. (can it be argued that this is not true intuition? fa idha wajhaka li deene 7anifa, fatara-allaha fitrata naasa 'alayha. la tabdeela le khalqi-allah...)

logic often paves the way for intuition.

* if intuition is done away with entirely, wisdom will not survive; but knowledge may.


The smaller scale is logic, indispensable as certainty, culminating at an appropriate zoom-out to knowledge. At the larger scale is wisdom, which can exceed beyond the logical addition of vast bodies of knowledge and guide when logic is over-whelmed by too many variables and yet ever-so delicate in helping us make even the smallest of decisions. Intuition, helping us adjust the lens focus and zoom in or out to the desired scale: logic, knowledge, wisdom.

Applied to space-time, quantum and relativity; what we have in physics currently is the logical forms and knowledge. We have seen how brief glimpses of a trained minds wisdom can revolutionize others' understanding: the Schrodinger-wave equation and Einstein's special theory of relativity thought experiment. A further wisdomous intuition (of quantum and cosmological proportions) is required to combine the lingering theories from their current nested infinite square roots to a congruent understanding. The closest candidate to such an understanding is that of Nottale:

(read the short preface):
http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr&id=FxpBouT_Fo8C&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=space-time+fractal&ots=ZhJXOczeGc&sig=Q16cjFGPmb62fPPsrGBa1EbbTsU&fb_source=message#v=onepage&q&f=false




I pray you have knowledge which brings assured peace, wisdom which brings total serenity, and immaculate intuition that ensures in every decision you are at complete ease.

May peace engulf your entire existence, and mine.

Asking the right questions: Where is God?

The contents of this post were lost while writing and I did not have the time to write them again. Unfortunately now (Jan 2012) I am unable to remember the contents. The jist of the matter was that there is far more knowledge out there than mankind throughout history can accumulate (let alone one man) and hence it is not the answers that are important per se, but the question is even more important. An interesting/intriguing/correct question is better than a thousand inconsequential answers.

Earthquakes, Spring Time and Daylight Saving

Japan, February 2011: Earthquake magnitude 9 on Richter scale followed by Tsunami and massive destruction, followed by Fukushima Nuclear Reactor radioactivity leak.

Tunisia: BenAli is overthrown.
Egypt: Mubarak is overthrown.
Libya: UN confirm no-fly zone, NATO airstrikes.

All lead to death and destruction. Natural or man-made disasters. The difference lies in the man-made disasters supposedly having a greater good in sight. Temporary destruction to relieve long-term suffering of oppressed civilians. Toleration of some deaths to prevent further deaths. Destruction of a countries infrastructure and economy to allow for future "open-markets" and "democratic" governments - as if these are absolute values to be respected.

Then how do we question the wisdom of natural disasters?
Why would God allow so many people die of an Earthquake and Tsunami?

Then there are those who question both: Why would God allow such destruction? why does the UN allow such airstrikes?

For centuries the wisdom of natural disasters and whether it proves or disproves the existence of a higher-omnipotent being has gone essentially without a convincing answer either way.

Instead, The question we should be asking is what is all of this telling us? What can we learn?

Firstly, nothing lasts.
Dictators that rule with iron fists can be toppled in a few weeks.
Power is temporary.
Glory on Earth is temporary.

Everything is perishible.
From civilians to dictators, from Lockheed martin aircraft to cities and bunkers, from civilan nuclear plants to the radioactive decay of the building blocks of matter, all are perishing before our eyes.
All that is conserved is Energy (heat, light, E=mc^2).

WE TOO ARE PERISHIBLE.
This deserves its own place as a point, as too often something that pplies for everyone somehow manages to be an exception when we apply it to ourselves. Cancer and death are examples until the befalls us.

All that will be left of us is... nothing that identifies us as uniquely us. In time even our bones will be turned to dust. We must leave behind something greater than our own selves, greater than our identities, greater than our times. Something that outlives time and is conserved. A good word. Spiritual Energy. These will grow.



Next we turn our gaze to the recent start of spring. The sunshine is back, heaters are turned down, flowers begin to bloom, trees are no longer as bare and barren as they used to be. The animals slowly leave hibernation. The Earth is once again infused with change and life.

Is it possible that everything that is perishible before our eyes, is actually eternal in another perspective? The lives lost in the Earthquakes, return to life once again?


These are the questions natural disasters should entice us to ask.

Today in the UK times were taken forward by an hour so that when we wake up we benefit from more daylight. It is in effect an attempt to keep the modern technologically dependent human in touch with his circadian rhythm. When it is daylight, we should be waking, when it become dark, we should be preparing to sleep. These light bulbs and TFT/LCD lights are interfering. When it turns dark, our time for the day has come and to it we shall submit.

When our time to die comes, to it too -willingly or unwillingly- we shall submit.


Ask the right questions, we must.
The right question is more valuable and fruitful for humanity than a million correct answers.

Let the spiritual spring, renewal and tazkiyyah begin.

Big Bang, Big Crunch: what goes up must come down

Serene salutations,

I was walking in the dark halls of hospital at 3 am relieved that all urgent jobs were completed and placed my pager back into the pockets of the scrubs I was wearing - and my car keys fell out with a resounding clunk onto the floor.

Now I'm not sure if it was my tiredness or that my mind had just gone from super stress to no worries or whether it was something else, but watching the keys fall and hear the noise was fascinating. I know it sounds cliche, is cliche, (newton's apple) but it made an impression on me so outstanding that I vividly recall this otherwise trivial event even a week later.

Why did the keys fall to the ground? Why do they fall everytime? Sure gravity, general relativity, space time curve all sound wonderful. But why?

Richard Feynmann (Nobel prize physics) beautifully describes how knowledge of names may fool us (or others) regarding how much we understand from a phenomenon.

Rumi and others allude to the return to our source "we are from the sea and to the sea shall we return". Do the keys fall because the constituent metal and plastic come from the Earth?
And what about celestial bodies, do they attract by what we understand as gravity because they literally come from one another too (big bang)? And humans (and all things created in pairs) do they attract one another becuase they are created from a single soul ? (using an ill defined term "soul" to understand a better defined concept: gravity)

Quran 39:6 and 7:189 read very similarly "khalaqakum min nafsin wahedatin thumma/wa ja'alla minha zawjaha" which translates "[God] created you from a single soul/person/being then/and created his mate of like nature".

Do objects fall because they were once united with the earth before the big bang? Do we fall in love because the male and female were created once as one?

Are these concepts of single gender soul and a single superdense matter before the big bang part of the platonic world of ideals ?

Notice that the comparison between the Earth and humans (or gravity and love) is not one that halts in the world of metaphysics. Enter metabiology. If the first creation was "Be! and it is!" ["kon fayakoon e.g. Qur'an Surah Yasin] then recreation is 'plant and it shall grow!' [no reference]. All the plants, and all our fruits come from seeds planted within the soil of the ground. All humans (besides the first) are created by the planting of a seed in the womb of a female. The sperm the seed, the womb the Earth. (Hence the term "mother nature" I presume.)

Outrageous (but consistent?) conclusions:
1. Love is to humans, what gravity is to the car keys and the ground.

2. As the human male and female were originally one, when separated they seek to rejoin. As all matter was originally one, now separated they seek to rejoin and this is what we experience in the alterations of night and day and the seasons and my keys falling onto hospital ground, as all result from this celestial longing to return to their origins causing orbits and resulting in "what goes up must come down".

3. the big bang resulted in matter being torn away in space and time, and the spacetime distortions (general relativity) are what we experience as gravity.
The separation of the single-soul platonic ideal of the male and female resulted in mankind being separated in soultime, and these distortions in soultime continuum are what we experience as love.

So might the secret lie in love? (As love is the twin sibling of gravity and the theory of gravity has not been reconciled with other laws of physics.) If you can find the equation for love, maybe then you can propose a "theory of everything" that will unite general relativity (e.g. gravity) with the electroweak (EM + nuclear) forces.

non bipedal humans

Peaceful greetings,

The obejctive of these blogs is to publicly enquire and explore aspects of human life that are so central to modern life that they have become almost invisible to us. Laws of nature that govern our actions and the world around us from archaic times that have thus far more or less evaded our scientific proding.

To ease the way into this, a simple example to begin with. I envisage the objective to become clearer and discussions to blossom within the first 7 or so blogs.


At hospital today, we did our morning round. A patient with an amputated leg because of blocked arteries was on our list. Another one awaiting an amputation to prevent the infection from the leg spreading. Though unfortunate and saddening, a common sight in hospitals.

Then at lunch time I went to the library (better seating than the canteen :) and looked out the window. I saw an elderly lady walking off-centre on 3 legs (2 legs + walking stick). (A horrible comparison, but like the spiders when we try to peacefully chuck them out the house but accidentally catch and break their legs so they're only left with 3 thus limping off-centre. I blame this on too much cleaning/vacuuming at home these days)

While some have their legs amputated and sit with one leg on chairs with wheels to get around, others use their hands to hold sticks and complement their two legs with a third just to keep themselves standing and mobile.

What is it that has made us with 2-legs and cats with 4, spiders on 8, caterpillers on...? Where is it in our genetic code that encodes this rule? Is this an example of an archaic code that governs our modern lives? When we are born, we struggle to move. Then when we do, we're on all 4. Eventually we stand and walk on 2 (is this ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny?).
Then like the waxing and waning moon we regress, using a stick to stand and walk on 3...

As current understanding goes, more or less fair to say that this bipedal (or otherwise) code is engrained in us both throughout our development in history (evolution) and our own lives. Fractals of our lives mimicking our predecessors' history.

"Something of everything, in everything"
- Anaxagoras (Greek Philosopher, 450BC)