|
The principles that we can gather by simply
observing a living organism, even less complex ones, are
fundamental to understanding that our world is founded on
rules and logics based on standard models. Just like in the
theory of elementary particles, the Standard Model (SM) can be
applied to the macroworld, upsetting rational mechanics
perhaps forever.
We have been accustomed, especially in
recent decades, to imagining the world according to categories
of thought that, in a certain sense, shaped a reality that was
too abstract.
Taking as a starting point the Standard
Model and the supersymmetry of particles (a theory that is
being examined and which is also in philosophical expansion),
we can begin to understand that the macroscopic world is also
organized with supersymmetries that often elude us because of
the functions of deterministic mathematics (and of chaotic
systems).
We should increasingly understand that the fact
that they elude us is not the same as saying that the world is
incomprehensible, and it is this consideration that should
lead to the philosophical speculation (which is the science of
induction for the others) that modern nihilism is more a child
of the intellectual transition of this historical period than
a real value.
Now while it is easier (famous scientists
and researchers will forgive me) to investigate supersymmetry,
superstring theory, and the links between particles and the
fundamental forces of nature, given the "narrow" field of
research, it becomes much more complex when the variable in
play derives from multidiverse systems and representative
ecosystems.
Yet, as we understand the ecoworld more, we
discover that there exists a supersymmetry that, starting from
the logic of the basic components (elementary particles),
creates a hierarchical structure of organized complexity (to
use the concept of Ilya Prigogine) until producing
manifestations (Life) which for us are (sometimes or often -
you decide) incomprehensible. This does not mean a lack of
rules but an intellectual difficulty to comprehend them
completely.
Here, to explain this structural aspect of the
way of thinking of this epoch, we could recall that what is
not comprehensible is not synonymous of chaos (or chance) and
to do this we can refer to an episode that a medieval
collection of Exempla attributes to Augustine Aurelio (better
known as Saint Augustine, 354 - 430 AD) and which is often
found in his iconography: "While Augustine was walking on a
deserted beach, meditating on the mystery of the Trinity, he
saw a child who was pouring sea water into a hole in the sand.
The Saint kindly warned him that it was a useless labour but
the child, revealing himself to be an angel, explained that a
hole in the sand can contain the sea more easily than the
human mind can contain the mystery of the Trinity". Without
entering into awkward and inopportune comparisons between
theology and science, it is evident how the superficiality of
a certain modern type of thought is contrary to establishing
that in Everything there is a rule, but if there is a rule in
Everything, this is the same as saying that the more I know,
(or sense) and more I can draw near to the Standard Model (be
it micro or macroscopic).
Life (that of man in the
universe) can become sustainable only in this condition and
indeed if we want to be concrete and philosophically and
scientifically realistic, the more we become conscious of this
aspect, the more it is sustainable. It is a little like an
equilateral hyperbole that draws nearer and nearer to the axis
of the x-axis but will never touch it (as geometry teaches).
The World, with all of its functions is Symmetrical and
based on a Standard Model; there is (fortunately) no way out
of this and any attempt to render Rules and Life chaotic is
destined to disappear as they are not based on the idea of
Logical Supersymmetry.
Guido Bissanti.
|
