The Importance of Observing Perception

Should we discover the most fundamental element in the universe we will see that it is independent of "size" attributes and is, instead, fundamental because of function. The study of the universe is ultimately a study of our own perceptions.

The pink elephant in the laboratory is consciousness. Without it no hypothesis or experiment can take place. It could be one of the most ill-considered variables in any experiment.

To take a hypothetical situation, two scientists may not consider how individual perspective plays a role because they have agreed on an observation. There is no difference between observations so there is no question as to its integrity. But if one asks his partner what he saw, how many perspectives are there? Would not one be processing "his" partner's answer the same way he would process his own observation? Or does he think that his partner's answer has somehow been received outside of his perception of it?

The universe does not obey two different set of laws depending on the size of the object. The size matters only to us. What is different is the observation itself. We experimentally observe sub-atomic particles behaving differently because that is how we observe. Things more related to how our senses and brain are modeled appear to behave one way. And things less related appear to behave another way.

For example, we will not understand a friend's life by examining their organs. We will not have an even deeper understanding of them by analyzing their cellular structure. We can claim that the system of beliefs and thinking that govern our friend's life is not mirrored in their DNA, but we'd be missing the point. When we are at the cellular level what we're observing is no longer our friend but other kinds of life physically integrated. Your friend is not aware of these beings (microbes and other conscious-appearing forms) nor does he or she need to be. The two living systems are as deeply related as the contents of your wallet. Yet, each behaves according to their own interpretation of a fundamental set of rules.

When we conceptualize the world of sub-atomic particles we need to do so from a sub-atomic perspective rather than one based mostly on physical operations. We look at a sub-atomic particle against a backdrop of objective space and wonder what strange rules apply. Not only does this require new vocabulary to decouple our connections to physicality when thinking about non-physicality, but an entirely new way of thinking.

How Do I Know Ecsys Isn't Some Crackpot Science?

Ecsys actually is "crackpot science" in the definition of any proper scientific community in this world. Ecsys doesn't speak the language of science, and that's fine. A person who has never heard someone speaking Greek may think it is gibberish, but that doesn't make it so. On the other hand, anyone can come up with an interesting system and claim it is the answer. More times than not that answer falls far short of its promises.

Yet, most systems that we work with today will not withstand the test of time. That is to say, much of modern science will be "crackpot science" in 100 years. History has repeatedly shown us time and time again that the accepted "facts" can be quite inaccurate. Even Newton’s theory of gravitation has had to be changed a few times. In the past 20 years alone scores of scientific hypotheses have received attention, funding, and research that have turned out to be not much at all.

And sometimes the "weird ideas" turn out to be true. (Most of those weird ideas will just be forgotten, of course.) We actually only understand a very small part of the universe. This fact alone should tell us that many of our common assumptions are mistaken.

 There is still much that scientists know they do not know, such as: what consciousness is, how life on Earth arose and what determines species diversity (or even what a species is), how memories work, what 90 percent or more of the universe is made of, what gravity is, the structure of water, how planets form, if there is life elsewhere, why we sleep, and lots more. (Source: Science Magazine) It was even recently discovered that a human cell has an electric field. And this field is 5x more intense (per meter) than a lightning bolt. Remember, there are tens, if not hundreds, of trillions of cells in a single human body. There's so much we haven't discovered about ourselves.

 Interestingly enough, Ecsys offers compelling answers to all of these questions. It does it not by making slow, complex calculations based on sometimes questionable foundations but by the simple premise that there are just four kinds of things in the universe, each of which will always exhibit certain traits and characteristics and interact with other elements in a certain way.

Again, Ecsys is not science. But it can be applied to scientific things (and political, economic, social, etc., things). However, what makes something important isn't how scientific it is but how useful it is.

 According to Stephen Hawking in his book, A Brief History of Time, "...a theory is a good theory if it satisfies two requirements: It must accurately describe a large class of observations on the basis of a model that contains only a few arbitrary elements, and it must make definite predictions about the results of future observations."

Many "theories" in science are not really theories at all, but more hypotheses. For example, the "Big bang" model rests on gravity resulting from matter, something which has not been verified. The observed rate of expansion of the universe is significantly larger than the calculated rate. (Oops!) But instead of calling it an 'error' scientists have simply increased the amount of "dark matter" in the universe by an astronomical amount (enough to conveniently compensate for the error). A complicated (i.e., "beautiful") mathematical model does not make for verification. Neither does the invention of fictional parameters to agree with experimental observations make for a theory. I'm reminded of sociological experiments that show how much "beautiful people" can get away with. The evidence for the "Big Bang Theory" came in the form of something called Mather’s Blackbody Spectrum, which has recently proven to be completely wrong (but not before two guys won the Nobel prize in physics for it).

 The darling of the physics world for the last 20 years is String Theory, a field of science built on the idea that elementary particles are not objects but are the vibrations of string-like entities. This theory has yet to be confirmed yet billions of dollars and countless hours have been devoted to its study. In the physics departments of our very best universities, 20 out of the 22 tenured professors are proponents of string theory. How a beautiful and complicated math can be mistaken for a simple explanation of everything is beyond reason. Peter Woit, a mathematician at Columbia University says, "The problem is that superstring theory is not really a theory, but rather a set of hopes that a theory exists. " (You mean... like a hypothesis?) Physicists support and promote string theory because it seems like the most promising candidate for a scientific Theory of Everything. However, it would seem that the nature of the universe is more like a fractal, facilitating simplicity, than a broken mirror with 600 dimensions.

Between 2 theories that are not even theories, have not verified any predictions (i.e., have no evidence), make the simplicity of the universe to be unnecessarily complex and inaccessible to all but a handful of humans, and a model of the universe that can be used by anyone today, offers compelling explanations to fundamental question in every field, and can actually be proven now, which one is the crackpot science? If you guessed "Ecsys" you are correct! And that's an unfortunate state of current scientific affairs.

However, the amazing thing is that science itself is built on non-scientific bases. (Meaning, you can't test the scientific method itself because it is, ironically, not scientific. Math is the only science that does not need to be based on reality. All other sciences should have, at their core, sound assumptions.) The foundations of the scientific method rest upon assumptions independent from experience. Science would fail its own test.

"Since philosophy is at least implicitly at the core of every decision we make or position we take, it is obvious that correct philosophy is a necessity for scientific inquiry to take place. Indeed, there are certain philosophical assumptions made at the base of the scientific method - namely, that reality is objective and consistent, that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately, and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world. These assumptions are the basis of naturalism, the philosophy on which science is grounded.." [from Evolution and Philosophy]

These basic assumptions fool scientists into thinking that the nature of something can be observed independent of the observation (i.e., as it really is). Although we've learned a few things from "Schroedinger's Cat" and other experiments in quantum physics the folly in science today is in giving up on testing these core assumptions and, thus, the true nature of any scientific results. Instead, we have religiously focused on the very limited reality that our brains create for us.

As we've read in the previous section, we are not consciously aware of more than 99% of the information that comes to us through our senses. This fact alone should make any scientist question the false assumption that "humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately". And, like generations before us, we create our own sense of rationality that is appropriate to our assumptions. If we begin with the core assumption of Earth being at the center of our solar system, for example, we can find evidence to support any related hypothesis (because our sense of reason will connect the two together in proportion to how much we believe it is true). Of course scientists today know better about Earth, but at the time this "fact" was the height of science. Since then our understanding of the world has evolved but our sense of reason has simply changed. We still hold core assumptions close to our hearts today that will amuse 12 billion humans in 100 years.

Ecsys proposes that reality is absolutely subjective and consistent with our perception, we do not have the capacity to perceive something the way it truly is (i.e., we can evolve our perceptual capacity but not observe beyond it), and that we can better understand the nature of something to the point that we see the implicit order in what was previously observed to be chaotic (i.e., we can expand our observation of rationality and have not finished discovering new logic). Although traditional science has been immeasurably useful, it ultimately fails because of these 3 basic assumptions.