"Alan Anderson" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"jonathan" wrote:

"tomcat" wrote in message
oups.com...

brian a m stuckless wrote:

This thread is a trifecta of fringe.


Well, conventional has the following properties.

Can you ever hope to comprehend the sum total of
all scientific knowledge, data and disciplines???
Can anyone?

And as time goes on, and the disciplines become ever
more refined, specialized and numerous. As the data
builds at almost a exponential rate, is any one person
less or more likely to have this ability???

Of course not, over time the current 'equation' of science
takes us ever farther from the possibility of
complete understanding.

But what if we could reverse this situation. Where over
time the opposite occurs. Less and less disciplines, more
and more common axioms. Less and less data as one
system ends up describes them all.

What if?

Where everyone could understand it all with the minimum
of detailed knowledge.

The 'equation' of the conventional scientific method goes
like this. As the reduction to the part details approaches
zero, the complexity of the accumulated science approaches
infinity.

And into the confusing darkness of complexity we descend.
Into meaningless and anxiety ridden views.

Simply inverse the initial frame of reference concerning
the relationship between observer and observed.

From reducing to part details, to expanding to system properties.
From honing objective abilities to subjective.
From using the physical world to understanding the living, to
the reverse. And so on.

I'm not making this stuff up, only putting it in my own words
with some dramatic license. It's taught at MIT for
crying out loud, just to name one.

DYNAMICS OF COMPLEX SYSTEMS
http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/index.html