What am I doing here?

I get strange searches from google or yahoo all the time, from queries about facial hair to blowing things up. It isn't too unusual for a search engine to come up with sites unrelated to the original query, so I usually give these searches little more than a cursory glance. One search from yahoo last week, however, caught my eye:

disorder to describe ability to find meaning in random information wikipedia

For once, I thought, "kid, you've come to the right place." Not that they stayed... the link (#6 in the search list) led to my story, "Illusions in Lavender", which describes the world as seen with bipolar disorder. I'm sure that scared them off right away, unfortunately. I say "unfortunate", because if Chaotic Utopia has any purpose, whatsoever, it is to describe the meaning in random information.

In a way, the yahoo surfer was trying to find the meaning of life on the web. To that, we've got to wish him luck. But as the legendary Douglas Adams once taught us, it is rather useless to know the meaning of something, if you don't fully understand what that something is. The surfer will keep surfing, I imagine; and perhaps will learn how to ride the waves, too.

So then, the purpose of this blog isn't so much to seek out the meaning of life, but to seek understanding of what life is. This seems to have led to a bit of confusion. I've had some odd comments recently, questioning what category this blog belonged in, science or otherwise:

jim: Isn't your blog mostly about art, not science?

grigory: I just actually wanted to know if this was a "science blog" or not!

:)

Frankly, these questions could go on all day. As I implied in my post, "Categorize This", people, and thus their blogs, are difficult to fit into narrow, exclusive categories. Yet, also suggested, in the same post, that categories are somewhat necessary, as indicative guideposts, (so we know we're on the same path,) if nothing else.

So, let's do this thing.... what category does Chaotic Utopia belong in? Where do you fit the study of a complex, changing world, based on uncertain values?

It might be religion, which tries to pinpoint a cause for it all. Encarta* defines religion as "people's beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life." (*-Encarta is somehow built into my word processor, so I'm using it for quick and convenient definitions, for this and all of the following terms.)

That "divine involvement" is sticky business. It all depends on what you consider "divine" ...in my case, as I explained, the "divine" is the "spirit" of nature itself... the personality behind the being. Others see the "divine" as being a literal being who created the earth and each person with a precise plan that we oughtn't question. That seems to be the definition that is most associated with religion. So, maybe religion isn't the best category to describe our Chaotic Utopia.

So, why not art, as Jim suggested? I must admit, that one flattered me... I'd never considered myself to be qualified to discuss art. "Art" is defined as "the creation of beautiful or thought-provoking works, for example, in painting, music, or writing." In this sense, "art" is the creative action, the result of the process, not necessarily describing the process itself. True, I see our universe as a self-creating work of art, which lends to the "Utopia" part of the title. But, art, as much as I appreciate it, isn't satisfying enough, and doesn't lead to the answers sought here.

Occultists, historically, have searched for those sorts of answers. But that wouldn't be much better than religion, as far as carrying stigmas go. (A definition for "magic": "a special, mysterious, or inexplicable quality, talent, or skill") Admittedly, I do enjoy looking over old tomes written by strange old men with names like "Papus" ...they, too, seemed to be looking for some answer behind everything. In some ways, they had the right idea... seeking associations between this and that, putting things into the categories, etc. But they wrapped it all up with mystical initiation rituals and incantations, and ultimately sought to gain power and wealth from their work. (If I could just get this lump of iron to change into gold...) In some ways, they were rather "out there", but in general, they had the right idea... they just needed to think less fanciful, more logically. So, the occult is out. How about philosophy?

In philosophy, I'll admit, I feel right at home. Philosophy is defined as "the branch of knowledge or academic study devoted to the systematic examination of basic concepts such as truth, existence, reality, causality, and freedom." With epistemological queries, we can question the nature of being and examine our preconceptions. Studying ethics, we can study which role values play, or in metaphysics, question the presence of the universe itself. Yet, while philosophy allows us to examine the questions, it typically does not provide solid answers which can be applied to the world. But if philosophical inquiry revealed the answer to the question "what is the universe," the answer would be little more than a logical proof. In order to be tested and applied, we need a more rigorous method, with solid data that can be examined.

Enter science. Science introduced the rigorous methodology. Science is defined as "the study of the physical world and its manifestations, especially by using systematic observation and experiment." Aha! Here we have our rigorous method: Ask a question, come up with a hypothetical question, observe through experimentation and the collection of data, and compare the data with the question. So, for the question at hand here:

The question: What is the universe? (Remember, the why comes later.)

The hypothesis: The universe is a collection of matter with Euclidian-style dimensions that can be described as value, information, existence or being (wholeness), time, and chaos.

Observe, experiment, and collect data: Take a part of the universe and see if it fits the pattern.

That's where you may find our Chaotic Utopia: a collection of data, being examined for common patterns--patterns in mathematics, in DNA, in astronomy, in the climate, in the geological processes, in the form of living beings, in art, history, and countless other areas. Naturally, there's a rub. Without a complete set of data; i.e., the whole universe, we can't compare it with the question, and move on to the final stage of the scientific method.

This is where (cover your ears, I'm about to sound like a heathen) science tends to fail. It's an excellent method for understanding individual details... but it has troubles when it comes to the big picture. Look to any branch of science to see what I'm referring to... lots of detail, but very little synthesis. It isn't that scientists don't covet synthesis in a particular field, but that the details are easier to come by. Then, when synthesis does occur, and a major scientific theory is brought forth, it's almost as if they are pointing out the obvious--Darwin: life changes over time. Einstein: matter is energy--discoveries filled with as much "Eureka!" as "Duh!"

In physics, for instance, we are approaching another shift towards synthesis... what that might look like, I'm certainly not qualified to say. Will it allow for descriptions of the values and dimensions, and mesh with my theory? I can't say. I can hope. But there isn't much point in waiting to find out... Better to keep experimenting, testing. While I could (and probably will) spend the rest of my life looking at these scientific examples and other ideas which sync with my own, I may never be able to test my theory, in full.

For the time being, science alone cannot easily describe the relationships between value and information, or between time and diversity, nor can philosophy, alone. If we wish to find a conclusive answer which covers both the specific details and the synthesis, we'll probably need a little of both. Who knows, perhaps even art and religion will play influential roles.

Chaotic Utopia was designed to search for that answer, using a combination of scientific and philosophic methods. Sometimes, it is pure science, looking at those detailed parts. Other times, it is pure philosophy, looking at the overarching themes. Sometimes, it is at the fuzzy line in between, or off the charts all together. Sometimes, it is cleverly disguised in art, or a story or a poem. But it is always going to be a little chaotic.

In case anyone is still trying to decide if this blog belongs here or not, I'd like to redirect you to the title of the post "Categorize This" and note that it was intended to be emphasized by the obscene gesture of your choice. Any further non-constructive quibbling along these lines will likely be ignored.

In early January, this blog will be one year old. At that point, I'll go back and look at the last year, highlighting the best of my science posts, as well as those which touch other subjects. For the next week, however, I'll be indulging in the holiday sort of chaos.

Cartoon by Mike Baldwin via CartoonStock.com