"Nature is to manmade, what ______ is to nature?" Supernatural?! And if everything that is manmade is not natural, then would there also be a boundary as to what can be considered natural. Alright; let's make things easier, shall we? We will make a "scale" (of sorts). And we will make the scale say from 1 to 10. Manmade, or everything that can only be produced/developed using raw material, will be rated as a one. Right? I assume you're alright with that. Alright, so now, we have to make a rating for nature. And, we must admit, there is an extremely astonishing question that arises in our minds; or at least, it has in my mind. Is it possible, that in our own universe itself, nature would not be ranked #10? WOAH! Can you even start to ponder this riddle?! Perhaps all that nature is, is a product of a higher realm? One in which everything is already lies closer to the origin? Is there something out there?; Is it possible...that nature itself is partially artificial?!! Or, is it at least artificial as compared to something else, which lies beyond our grasp? See what I mean?! What I am trying to simply say is that, even though we refer to nature many times, we don't see beyond that realm. We divide the world up into "manmade" (or artificial) and "natural". Yet all of the atoms and everything that the universe is composed of, might have come from somewhere, right? Perhaps they were "taken" from an invisible realm beyond our grasp, and the raw material from that realm were used to create all of stuff that exists in our own realm or energy and matter?! And perhaps it is so that the terms "natural" as well as "manmade", are just "subterms", which means that they are part of something even greater. Just like particles are parts of atoms. Obviously, the term "artificial" is technically false, as everything that we have or will produce, comes from nature. However, I still think that this term is useful, as it does help to clarify the fact that there is a difference between what is directly, and what is indirectly a part of nature. It's just the same as saying that something is "cold" as opposed to something that's "hot"; it's all just part of the same thing after all. Well, yet in away, each of these terms still aren't the same, as there are many noticeable differences which distinguish the two. So, therefore, in my opinion at least, it is totally safe to assume for the sake of this story, that natural and artificial are both different terms. So if nature is a "5" on the scale that I described earlier, than what comes after 5?! Again, there is no rule saying that nothing can come after five. After all, we are always in the process of understanding our universe. And thanks to our explorations into the universe as well as Earth and reality itself, we have discovered many secrets, many of which have seemed incredibly mysterious and "impossible to ponder" in the past (the explanations posed for them were looked upon as impossible to hold true). Likewise, there was also once a time during which most all people on Earth thought that there would never be such thing as cars, planes, etc., let alone the fact that we now have the ability to travel through space itself!
The Analogy; Is Nature Artificial?...
Is mankind producing things that are simply less artificial than nature itself? Here's an analogy to help and explain what I'm trying to get across to you, the reader. First of all, let's think about how products are produced here on Earth. We take raw materials, and eventually those materials can be turned into actual products. Could it be, that this process is akin to that of how the universe works? Could all of nature as we know it, just be made out of stuff that was created using what would be known in engineering as "Primary Processing?", in which all of our products made by people, can be thought of as part of the Secondary Processing? As far as we know these days, nature is made up of raw materials, which can only be turned into stock, given that people become involved. However, what I think, is that there could be an even lower level of production, if we were to begin thinking about the universe in general. Perhaps all of the stock (atoms) that we use in making stuff comes from something else, which perhaps may come from an even lower level of reality. And maybe the reason we do not know about it, is that we just don't have the ability to reach that most basic level. (Atoms are based on particles, and particles are based on smaller particles). Yet there is nothing in this world that point to a fact that would prove that atoms and particles are the most basic form of matter, or that they have not been formed by some process in the past. Obviously, everything that makes up the cosmos, including particles, have practically been proven to be formed by natural processes. However, there is still room to hypothesize the fact that there was, at one time, something (a process) that has resulted in the formation of everything. All of the particles, neutrons, gluons, neutrinos, quarks, etc. (the smallest individual units of matter that we can currently acknowledge) could have been products that were once created by something beyond our reach. And this may or may not also apply to all of the energy in existence. This is not as crazy as it may seem, at least for me; because if particles are actual products, then the various conditions that exist in the universe are just changing the structures of these products. And due to the fact that there are such extreme conditions in our universe, this is leading scientists to constantly think that particles are only creations of the conditions which exist in space, and that the same logic goes for energy. Well, essentially, I would agree that this does make sense... for the most part. Because, I am definitely convinced that there is something more to all of this universe; that everything here might not even exist were it not created, or produced, through the use of some other more basic process. In other words, all things would just remain at their more "primitive" state, or they would simply just be "materials". It has been said, and there is quite a large bit of evidence supporting the existence of dark energy as well as antimatter. And still the question among the scientific community remains this: where in the universe does all of this dark energy and matter, as well as antimatter end up? So let me leave you with this: "And so we return to my theory, that there is something much more to this universe than meets the eye". Call it supernatural? Well, whatever it is, it's really got me writing today! Anyway, another thing that I am trying to get across is that we are not the only force at work here in this universe. And, if science eventually points to a theory that nature is not the "most natural" thing in the universe, then maybe some day my theory will be on to something. If "nature" (as we usually know about it) is not a 10 on the scale of original, then will we ever have the ability (and the courage) to chart our Universe beyond nature itself? Will we ever delve even deeper into the unknown? And if so, what will we be able to discover? Will we eventually become supernatural entities (so to say)? Will this be a result of our continuous dabbling in scientific topics. In other words, will science itself lead us into a conclusion that proves to us that the universe is more mysterious than we have ever though of it to be?
Thank you for your understanding!!! That I am really thank you for! And please, so that I don't have to write with a you using a digital texting/messages or notifications through social!!!!! Ryan, Wyatt Howard, Mike Whittum, Don, Mike Hammond, John Briggs, Chris Hidy, Zoe Nash,
Thank you for your understanding!!! That I am really thank you for! And please, so that I don't have to write with a you using a digital texting/messages or notifications through social!!!!! Ryan, Wyatt Howard, Mike Whittum, Don, Mike Hammond, John Briggs, Chris Hidy, Zoe Nash,
No comments:
Post a Comment