The New Paradigm - Life in the Loop

An overview of the history of science points towards an interesting development: the de-massification of solid physical objects. There were four elements for the ancient Greeks: earth, fire, water and air. In other cultures, metal and wood were also considered as basic elements. Fire was later discovered to be a thermal process, whereas the other elements became but different condensations of molecules. Then, together with mass, time and space gained prominence as stable "elements" of physical nature. With Einstein's famous formula, mass lost its constancy, and instead, energy gained preeminence, and with the advent of relativity, both space and time lost their firmness. Time could no longer be regarded as absolute when the same event happened at different times for different observers. Space became more fluid, dependent on velocity and the observer in its own inertial frame. However, although space and time lost their absolute status, it was still hoped that activities could be attributed to belonging to a certain place and time - without "spooky action over distance." Of course, this hope was ruined by quantum theory's prediction of non-local phenomena, a prediction later validated by experiments (i.e., the Allan Aspect experiment). Also, it was posited that, in the quantum world, only such states could exist that could be described by the theory, thereby denying the possibility of any and every quantum reality. So what remained firm and tangible? It was still believed that those quantum states that could be described were objectively real. But are they? Can a quantum state, or anything else, have meaning without an observer, without it relating and being related to? Throughout history, man has held that the true nature of Nature can be known, predicted and controlled. That has been the purpose of science. But what if Nature has no true nature?

Zeno's paradoxes proving that there can be no motion were never solved. He showed that we would run into infinities if we tried to prove motion between still objects (for instance, his Achilles and the tortoise "Paradox"). We experience and perceive motion, and laws that can predict and control motion exist, and yet it appears that Zeno proves that there can be no motion. Perhaps the assertion should change to reflect a different emphasis as follows: there can be no motion between still objects, because, perhaps, there are no still objects. Maybe what we perceive as still objects are also complex dynamics (motion)? This would be the demassifying of any separate, well defined object that was previously believed to be some kind of fundament to build upon.

SHET's appearance is the culmination of the historic process of demassification. Throughout history, the emphasis was on "Significance", stills. What are things really made of? How does it really work? Which laws govern this or that phenomenon? How did it all really begin? All such questions inquire about defined states, what SHET calls significance. His major contribution is his guiding us to query "Structure" instead. This is very different from discovering a new law, a new theory, a new "Truth". SHET teaches us the mechanics of creation, how those phenomena we observe could come about. This is creation as opposed to description. SHET's novel approach to the "Inconsistency" of absolutes and complete definitions, as well as to the dynamics of paradoxes as the essence of "Creation" and creativity, force us into new fields of discovery. Viewing "Consciousness" as the isomorphous, complex, non-linear lawfulness of the loop logic, the structure of any significance, initiates a new era of science, and in general, of relating.

The invention of a new paradigm that did not define the nature of things - how they really are or how they should be - was amazing. The breakthrough was, instead of focusing on how and what things were, focusing on the dynamic structure of things, which is, how they are perceived. Or in other words, instead of trying to understand phenomena by discovering the underlying lawfulness, my efforts were directed towards understanding the dynamic infrastructure of any lawfulness, belief or perception, which of course is also a kind of lawfulness, but a very different one. Its parameters are not phenomenological entities, but abstract logical creatures. The lawfulness of the act of perception became the loop logic, a big step toward discovering the secrets of Creation. A new non-causal language evolved that linked consciousness with the rest of existence through the endemic paradoxes that gained a paramount status when truth turned out to be a dynamic structure rather than a reified goal.

We often wonder: What is life really? Science has no definite answer. Traditional religion sees life as an attribute of physical existence, as something temporarily entrusted to hold together a sack of bones, and then it is revoked. SHET sees life as that regularization of "Complexity" that can induce perception and experience. He regards life as the sacred coherency of consciousness. To really be participants, we need to understand and experience the permeating feature of this vibrant energy: life. To exercise our freedom of choice and thereby enhance the quality of that life, we need to learn to navigate the Loop of Creation. The expansive embrace of both feeling the totality of Creation - all places and all times - as well as focusing on and rejoicing in the motion of the smallest ant, is the real enriching experience of being everything and everyone and, at the same time, being an individual. We need to be fluid processes, experiencing the rest of Creation as fluid processes braiding, weaving the tapestry of experience. It's all a game: the celebration of life.