The Process – Part 1 of 2

Please allow me to fill you in a bit on some of the steps in the process I undertook and captured in my book.  It’s important to keep in mind that, if the explanation of everything were really succinct, I wouldn’t have needed an entire book in which to present it.  It would be very silly to think that I could present some small excerpt of the explanation out of context and have it make any sense.  No, thank you, I’d much rather be called a “crank” by someone who has actually taken the effort to read the book in its entirety.

Having said that, I do intend to place excerpts of the book on this blog over time to provide samples of the book’s content and to provide teasers to those hold-outs who have not yet obtained a copy of my book.

I decided that a new approach was required to overcome the hurdles faced by science in understanding the underlying nature of our universe, so I set out on an attempt to establish what that path might look like and the best way to take my first step onto it.  Not wanting to rush unnecessarily into my selection of the approach, I spent a paltry three decades carefully and deliberately considering my options.  Toward the end of the summer of 2010, I pinned down my starting approach.

I started writing my book on October 30, 2010.  My original intention was only to describe this new scientific/philosophical approach by which I hoped to separate scientific truths from flawed, incomplete scientific interpretations.  I had only wanted to capture and share my approach with others in the hopes that valuable new insights might unfold.  It’s also only fair to share with you that I had absolutely no idea how the book was going to end when I started writing it.

Any new thoughts I propose have to be completely consistent with the large and growing body of increasingly precise scientific data/measurements.  However, I was not willing to be equally and mindlessly loyal to the interpretations and models formed by others before me that may have contributed to today’s flawed and incomplete scientific understanding.

Along the way, I took inventory of the paradoxes and mysteries that emerged over the span of time ranging from pre-Socratic philosophies through today’s most contemporary scientific efforts.  I dissected these paradoxes and mysteries down to the core component thoughts upon which each is based.  In a way, I performed a genealogical analysis of these core fundamental thought structures, or memes.  I then traced each of these memes back to their roots.

By the end of the book’s second section, I was shocked to discover that each and every paradox or mystery, of either the enduring or the more contemporary variety, was deeply related to every other one.  Zeno’s paradoxes against motion appeared to me to be related to the results of the double slit experiment and even to the observation of non-luminous matter and other dark things.  It became clear that overcoming any one of these mysteries held out the prospect of overcoming them all.

Which particular mysteries and paradoxes have captured your attention?

(The second part of this article will be posted later this week.)