International Innovative Institute

Answering the Comment of Dr. Brechner on Abandon Earth

Mon, 08/23/2010 - 06:14

When we explore and rein the outer cosmos, don’t forget to explore and rein the inner cosmos.

Hopefully we learn from the 20th century of massive cruelty, and the piling environmental issues, to preserve humans and the earth longer and better.

Science and humanity are the two legs of civilization. Both are important.

My musical talked about space immigration in 1994. It certainly is not too early an idea for now.

Sun, 08/22/2010 - 23:08 — Kevin Brechner
Re: Abandon earth like Hawking or sustain humanity | Internation

Hi, Dr. Wu,
It seems inevitable that humans will expand further into space. You might enjoy an interesting book by Timothy Leary called Exo-Psychology, about expansion of human consciousness into space. (Leary, T. (1977) Exo-Psychology: A manual on the use of the human nervous system according to the instructions of the manufacturers. Los Angeles (Culver City): Starseed/Peace Press, ISBN 0-915238-16-0).

Although humans can be selfish and aggressive, they also can be caring and altruistic. You might be interested in the social trap model that looks at some of the factors that control peoples' behaviors related to how they treat the environment. I put some reference below.

In the meantime, I hope we can work to sustain our planet. I just presented a paper at the 118th annual convention of the American Psychological Association with suggestions of how to decrease the flow of trash into the Ocean. You might find it interesting. It is at A social trap analysis of the Los Angeles storm drain system: A rationale for Interventions at

Social Traps and resouce dilemmas:

Hardin, G. (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162, 1243-1248.

Platt, J. (1973) Social traps. American Psychologist, 28, 641-651.

Cross, J.G. & Guyer, M.J. (1980) Social Traps, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, ISBN 0-472063154

Brechner, K.C. (1977) An experimental analysis of social traps. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 552-564.

Brechner, K.C. and Linder, D.E. (1981) A social trap analysis of energy distribution systems. Chapter 2 in Advances in Environmental Psychology, Vol. 3, (A. Baum and Singer, J.E., eds.), Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

Abandon earth like Hawking or sustain humanity

Sun, 08/22/2010 - 02:40

Stephen Hawking: I believe that the long-term future of the human race must be in space. It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster on planet Earth in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand, or million. The human race shouldn't have all its eggs in one basket, or on one planet. Let's hope we can avoid dropping the basket until we have spread the load.

I see great dangers for the human race. There have been a number of times in the past when its survival has been a question of touch and go. The Cuban missile crisis in 1963 was one of these. The frequency of such occasions is likely to increase in the future. We shall need great care and judgment to negotiate them all successfully. But I'm an optimist. If we can avoid disaster for the next two centuries, our species should be safe, as we spread into space.

If we are the only intelligent beings in the galaxy, we should make sure we survive and continue. But we are entering an increasingly dangerous period of our history. Our population and our use of the finite resources of planet Earth, are growing exponentially, along with our technical ability to change the environment for good or ill. But our genetic code still carries the selfish and aggressive instincts that were of survival advantage in the past. It will be difficult enough to avoid disaster in the next hundred years, let alone the next thousand or million. Our only chance of long term survival, is not to remain inward looking on planet Earth, but to spread out into space. We have made remarkable progress in the last hundred years. But if we want to continue beyond the next hundred years, our future is in space. That is why I'm in favor of manned, or should I say "personed," space flight.

Just based on Hawking’s own argument, the fundamental problem is “our genetic code still carries the selfish and aggressive instincts”. Then, that is where we need to explore and reign.

One can go to the other end of the universe, but, if the problem is "in there", the solution won't be "out there".

If mankind reduces the earth to hell, how can mankind be trusted to build where so ever in space, to be heaven?

My Musical “Sensation Millennium’, delivered 1994, dealt with this topic. The story goes like the following:

As the earth is deteriorating, a group is sent to explore the space for another home.

Some planets are not habitable. Some are but already occupied and the inhabitants expel humans.

The group finally finds a planet to stay. But internal power struggle destroys the group.

So, another group has to be sent out to explore, while the power struggle on the earth continues…..

新科學與人文 --從魯迅, 張愛玲, 白先勇, 李安 談起--

Sun, 07/04/2010 - 04:16

要旨: 五四以前西方現代唯我獨尊, 以為從科學到人文, 一切答案清楚明白. 東方傳統價值備受質疑. 而今知從科學到人文, 要皆渾沌複雜. (物理新說有渾沌論, 複雜論. 社會學有非左, 非右之第三道). 正當知其局限 (有限論), 結合東西, 省思明察, 抱持信念, 和諧共進.

2006 年, 白先勇來到洛杉磯, 帶著精美絕倫, 盪氣迴腸的昆曲 ” 青春版牡丹庭” 來了. 舞台上演譯著生死不悔, 幽冥難阻的愛戀, 舞台下卓然而立著一個苦心孤脂, 生死以之的中華文化守護者, 深黯東方文明之美的大師藝術家!

從早年的中國現代小說到今天的昆曲文藝復興, 什麼是白先勇的基本信念, 終極關懷?

從創作到人生, 在現代浪潮舖天蓋地而來, 中華文明面臨存亡絕續之變的時空背景下, 我們珍貴的創作者, 如魯迅, 如張愛玲, 如白先勇, 如李安, 他們的人格特質, 成長背景, 人生際遇, 哲學思想是如何彰顯於作品中, 生活中?

大環境與個人相互激盪, 留下天才不朽之作, 映照著我們的靈魂, 見證著社會與文明, 其發展演變, 又如何昭示著思潮之詭幻與真實, 常態與變異, 局限與可能?!

五四運動揭櫫德先生與賽先生, 標舉對現代西方之全盤信念. 而於深層省思之新世紀文明, 於思想, 科學, 政經, 心理, 文藝各層面, 我們又將抱懷何等之思考, 展望與情懷?


橫眉冷對千夫指, 俯首甘為孺子牛

魯迅筆下, 中華傳統, 華人皆丑化而醜化, 是憂憤至極的恨鐵不成鋼. 於現狀找不到出路而與傳統價值絕裂.

脫略深沉, 堅硬犀利之男性意識, 碰撞於國族倜儻之秋, 激盪成搜魂奪魄之作. 鼓萬千人心, 成一代巨擘.

感時憂懷, 烈血冷面. 強烈的男性意識, 反抗威杈, 陳腐, 寄情孺子. 聲嘶力竭地吶喊是一闕國運淒愴曲. 而魂魄之所繫, 嘔心瀝血, 所關懷者乃中華民族!


張愛玲履言 "破壞, 蒼涼, 人生如華美的袍子, 上面佈滿了蝨子".

以才高一石, 全盤創新之女性筆觸, 意象與意識, 建構她的華美穠艷與破敗毀壞. 作為文學上徹底之病理學家, 古今中外, 唯此才女.


精短而代表性之“色, 戒”, 戳破了抗日青年英雄的神話, 更戳破了愛情的神話!


試以Floyd 戀父情結之分析看張愛玲: 少女時與後母口角, 父毒打之, 關進柴房, 不予吃食. 病重奄奄, 父始為之打針救活. 此創傷之深, 難以丈量.

所棲身之國, 又終結其祖曾得極度榮顯之朝代.

於家, 於國, 她的關連都是錯亂與傷痛.

張愛玲是驚才絕艷, 聰明絕頂之創傷後遺症患者嗎?

張愛玲敏銳而堅硬, 並不自殺. 而萬千怨憎, 蓋世才華, 造就了她巨細靡遺的照妖鏡, 聚光下, 聖賢愚不肖, 達貴市井, 人人皆妖, 鬚眉俱現.

張愛玲堅硬到底, 孤死於徒壁客舍, 人情物情, 一概滅絕.

其小說 “人人皆妖魔, 大妖吃小妖”. 有罪無罰, 沒有救贖.

張愛玲如同上滅下絕之教主. 神龕下人人頂禮膜拜, 觳觫戰慄. “色, 戒” 則可為祭旗.

這是原始個人主義之濫殤, 能不陷入人生, 社會之死胡同?

其實, 張父亦為時代之受害者. 兩個文明或種族相遇時, 弱方之男性意識受挫受傷. 張父乃一例證. 若張愛玲有此之察, 怨憎或可稍解?

白先勇-慈眉慧目, 悲天憫人

表面上, 白先勇與張愛玲相似, 鴛鴦蝴蝶, 沒落王孫. 實則大相逕庭.

白先勇小說中慈悲舖天蓋地而來. 生活中則與知心人一生情長, 死生闊契, 悲喜無悔..

其西方現代小說技巧爐火純青, 而舖陳對人生深沉之喂嘆, 刻劃東方之情懷, 人物, 魂魄; 刻骨銘心, 淋漓盡至. 技巧與內容之間出神入化, 渾然天成的結合, 創造出小說藝術上石破天驚, 登峰造極之天才不朽之作.

其小說遊園驚夢, 縈繞昆曲之美, 實鬼斧神工; 而年華不再, 興衰流年, 繁華若夢, 精緻而深沉, 真美哲極品. 文藝上廣陵絕響. 天上人間, 唯白先勇一人. 其今思戮力推廣昆曲, 良有以也.

白先勇父為抗日英雄, 母則虔誠禮佛.

白先勇的基本信念, 終極關懷, 是佛教之慈悲為懷, 儒家的捨我其誰, 任重道遠. 青年時思科技報國, 而今致力復興昆曲皆有以之.

白先勇以儒家之情深意重, 佛家之慈悲智慧, 加以藝術家的靈心巧筆, 成就了輝煌豐富, 深刻動人的作品及人生. 天下各地之讀者, 表演者, 觀眾, 莫不感動且感激.

李安-低眉推手, 旋乾轉坤

儒家之溫良恭儉讓, 道家之低眉推手, 化骨綿掌. 批判一切之成見, 体恤一切之苦難與糾葛. 真誠之藝術家, 涵容理性與非理性, 處理人性之基本課題. 壓抑中之執著, 是中國式之浪漫主義.

中原文化經南台灣與西方之淬練, 竟然涵蘊出驚天動地之作.

李安自陳主心骨為"若即若離, 天人合一".

斷背山批判了基督文明對同性戀之嚴厲, 顛覆牛仔英雄形象,而美國男性視之為溫煦之拯救與解放!

西方同志電影, 要之責以罪惡而悲情酷厲, 要之反向操作則嘻鬧梯突. 李安出之於中華深厚綿長之人文傳統, 將同志戀放在人性之尺度範疇, 娓娓道來, 振撼西方!

臥虎藏龍宣揚了中國俠義也批判了中國俠義! 章子怡六親不認, 個人秀堅, 是批判也是宣揚.

化骨綿掌, 無堅不摧, 陰中有陽, 陽中有陰. 是攻擊也是撫慰, 是撫慰也是攻擊. 從此, 所有文化, 性別, 種族的界限, 樊籬與疆域, 都有了更新的面貌與內涵. 上帝創造世界與人類, 而李安旋乾轉坤, 顛陰倒陽, 再造了世界與人文.

歷數世界級導演, 文化人士, 從未有借西方之体, 還東方之魂, 而在美學,哲學上如此爐火純青, 膽識過人者.

李安長於用英語說中國話, 反之亦然. 李安能陽奉陰違, 借屍還魂, 借人之唇以夫子自道 (Put his words in others’ mouth).

李安處理完男性意識, 筆鋒一轉, 借張愛玲小說來探究女性意識. (正如張系國, 長成於台灣孔孟社會之這一代, 要五十歲之後才能像美國十五歲少年般探索異性.)

李安與張愛玲, 在美學與哲學上, 都既有交疊又有反差. 失之毫釐, 差以千里.

李安作品至今恆常斯文, 彬彬君子, 哀而不傷, 淡泊雋永, 微言雅意, 寫意空靈, 含蓄纏綿, 溫潤蘊藉, 外弛內張, 有機隨緣, 若即若離. 李安批判一切之成見而彰顯多元價值.

張愛玲小說結構綿密, 絲絲入扣, 機心巧運, 布局深沉. 人物纖穠陰狠, 表裡莫測. 張愛玲照妖鏡下人人現形而無價值.

當李安遇見張愛玲, 在美學與哲學上, 將如何借張之言以道李之語? 如何無極生太極? 我們拭目以待 ”色.戒”.


審視四位文化人之時代背景, 作品與人生, 体察世局變化, 我們從中得到何等昭示?

個人主義, 唯物思想, 隨現代巨浪而來. 五四運動揭櫫民主與科學. 線裝書被拋進茅廁. 現代=西方=進步=真理=萬能.

中華幾乎絕亡的悲情與苦難己遠, 寶貴的經驗中學到了什麼?可為百代鑑, 可為諸國鏡?

西方之宇宙觀是機械, 簡約, 構造. 如此發展之西方科學是萬能的嗎?

基於個人主義, 孕育於資本, 秀堅, 基督背景之西方民主是萬能的嗎?


西方現代科學始於牛頓開創之古典力學. 彼時物理學界志得意滿, 以為真理在握, 物理定律如全能上帝.

爾後有多重新發現與理論, 如相對論, 二元論 (duality), 測不準原理, 量子力學, 渾沌, 複雜等.
費恩曼(Feynman) (諾貝爾獎科學家), 愛因思坦之後最重要之物理學者之一, 同時也是藝術家, 有云:
我想我可以安全地說無人了解量子力學. (物理定律之特色. 劍橋, 美國, 1967)
I think that I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.
The character of physical law (Cambridge, USA, 1967)
施洛丁哲公式從何而來? 不可能從任何你所知者演伸而來. 它來自施洛丁哲之心智. (費恩曼物理講義)
Where did we get that [Schrödinger's equation] from? It's not possible to derive it from anything you know. It came out of the mind of Schrödinger.
(The Feynman Lectures on Physics)
人之知覺有限, 有各種不足, 繆誤, 偏執, 唯力圖在理論與實驗中自圓其說.

必須明白此局限, 保持心智開放, 不斷釐清頭腦, 心智, 與真實. 望能趨進真實.

在西方, 某些最開闊進步的學者, 已積極汲取東方思想之精髓.

普理格今 Prigogine (諾貝爾獎科學家) 極度推崇中華有機, 整合, 功能之宇宙觀. 他書中首頁即提及中華 ”自然” 一詞. 他創造 ”自組” (Self Organization) 學說, “非平衡熱力學” (Non-equilibrium Thermodynamics), 呼應 "天地位焉, 萬物育焉", “生生不息” 之理念.

羅素 (數理邏輯學家)最稱許中華之人文社會傳統.

柯林頓: “徒民主不足以完滿”.

而今西方社會科學之顯學為”第三道” (The Third Way). 即非左, 非右之中道. 呼應中華長遠之 “中庸之道”.

現象學 (Phenomenology) 呼應禪宗思想.
歐美之存在主義者, 藝文人士推尊寒山, 拾得.

東方, 作為獨立發展於西方之体系, 對於最開闊敏銳, 進步熱切之西方大師, 於科學, 哲學, 社會, 心理, 文學, 藝術各領域, 於身, 心, 靈 各層面; 是全方位之挖掘不盡之寶藏.

莫輕賤傳統. 若妄自菲薄傳統方為可輕賤. 從科學到人文, 西方己積極汲取東方之精髓. 吾等更當綜合東方與西方, 傳統與現代.

筆者創有限論, 省思主義, 主張破除狹隘與成見, 建構新物理學. 以新數學, 新理念, 不斷釐清並明察頭腦, 心智, 與真實. 冀望趨進真實.

筆者1994年於洛杉磯, 創作現代詩舞劇, 以白人藝術家演出 ”零與一, 陰與陽”. 渠等表達東方情思, 淋漓盡致!!

新世紀中, 出入於東西文化之間, 一方面知各有限, 一方面開闊省思, 明察待變, 創造璨爛新文明.


世界局勢重新洗牌, 如何和諧面對未來之挑戰? 如何結合東西方之資源, 締造更多的願景?

華人能對此 “高科技, 高觸感, 新經濟, 新文明” 的世界有何貢獻呢?
A. 有機宇宙觀
B. 中醫藥
C. 哲學 (儒道釋, 諸子百家)

D. 美學 (特重多重曲折反覆之 S 形, 正弦sine, 餘弦cosine, 不丁不八)

E. 禪學 (知覺, 官能 之局限與省思)

F. 武術, 太極拳等

G. 象形文字(費恩曼對此深感興趣).

H. 獨特之詩書畫, 文學, 表演藝術, 工藝, 庭園, 建築, 烹調, 服飾等.

I. 和諧觀 (身與心, 人與人, 人與自然等)

J. 現代化之經驗. 檢驗傳統與現代化之互動. 見證社會乃一生態体系.

K. 各行業生產力及創造力之釋放

L. 永續追求和平, 進步與繁榮. 禮 運大 同

再回到文學. 願生理學家為常, 病理學家為變.
何為是非善惡, 有否果報救贖, 感情是否徒增華髮, 理想是否終成灰燼?
昔人已乘黃鶴去, 此地空餘黃鶴樓
人去樓空不復返, 自雲千載空悠悠
晴川瀝瀝漢陽樹, 芳草淒淒鸚鵡洲
日暮鄉關何處去, 湮波江上使人愁


世局有安有危, 人性有常有變. 如得其情, 則哀矜而勿喜. 信望愛是可以長久的法則.


基督博愛, 我佛慈悲, 天下為公, 社會生物學, 都指向休戚與共的當然與必然. 夸父追日, 愚公移山, 知其不可為而為之. 中國式之浪漫主義, 鞠躬盡萃, 死而後矣. 海枯石爛, 精神意義永存.

不要為了怕刺, 把整朵玫瑰給扔了.

也想不相思, 以免相思苦, 幾度細思量, 情願相思苦.

也想無理想(目標), 免為理想(目標)苦, 幾度細思量, 寧為理想(目標)苦.

網路延展, 全球一村, 天涯比鄰. 人類有了前所未有的基礎建設, 而每一個個人也有了空前的機會和選擇. 讓柔軟與善意充溢, 分享淚水與歡笑. 呢喃與諦視, 輕歌與曼舞, 自我與大我親密的結合, 人生希望是朵朵玫瑰, 處處花香! 不要再有孤絕與隔閡, 而是更多的了解與交溶.

望世間沒有一個受苦的生命, 沒有一個寂寞的身影, 沒有一個虛擲蹉跎的心靈.

五四以前西方唯我獨尊, 以為從科學到人文, 一切清楚明白. 而今地球是平的, 從科學到人文, 渾沌複雜, 正當知其局限, 開闊綜合,省思明察, 抱持信念,和諧共進.

思辨者天機真理, 所見者渾沌複雜. (若即若離)

學術上, 知其有限, 開闊綜合, 敏銳省思, 明察待變, 冀望趨進天機真理.
生活上, 信仰開悟. (天人合一)

柯林頓提倡互依獨立 (interdependence). 高爾關心全球暖化.

地球一村, 人與人從未如此息息相關. 我們有最好的機會趨進於樂園. 我們站在東西樞紐上,可以攜手追求真善美, 共同創造幸福新文明!

Wennie Wu, 新科學與人文 --從魯迅, 張愛玲, 白先勇, 李安 談起--,, 2007/09/21 14:47

Critique of Book "Quantum Enigma"

Sat, 05/15/2010 - 00:21

Not long ago I read the book "Quantum Enigma" at the behest of a college friend of mine from the University of Maryland School of Physics. Our group at U of M spent many school days speculating on field theories for electro-magnetism, gravitation and quantum chromodynamics. Although I was also a student of medieval and early Christian history at the time I never considered an analogy between quantum mechanics and Saint Thomas of Aquinas's treatise on Christian theology, the two concepts seemed too distinct. Wolfgang Smith has however written a book on the subject and with some success. To the uninitiated this approach to interpreting quantum theory could seem arbitrary however after reading the book I see a method to it. Although many post modern quantum theorists such as, Richard Feynmann, would find the attempt to interpret the "absurdity" of QM theory foolish; I can hear the echos, human beings just do not think like that or scientists use QM simply because it works. Many of the contemporary species of theorists of course do not have time to speculate the philosophy of QM either as these theorist have a repertoire of consistency issues for justifying hundreds or infinite, most likely countably infinite, numbers of universes that really cannot be proved or disproved until we get the math right. I suppose that fundamentals of QM theory have become too mundane.

As I maintain, I do see justification for Dr. Smith's approach to understanding QM. In fact Wolfgang Smith's thesis is analogous to that of Saint Thomas of Aquinas and his predecessor Saint Augustine. These Christian writers admired Greek philosophy to an extent that insisted relevance in theology. So why not extend the unified Socratic forms of Saint Thomas toward a present interpretation of QM. Unification was of course a confounding and incendiary issue for early and medieval Christians, whosoever interpreted the trinity could hazard the wrath of heresy. Only the boldest intellect would consider attempting such theological interpretations just as Wolfgang Smith to a lesser extent would attempt to interpret QM in the current era. Saint Augustine in fact unified the substance of the Socratic forms to be the essence of the holy spirit which proceeds from the father and the son, Filioque (the Eastern Church interprets that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father through the son, this lead to the schism of 1054 and the sack of the holy eastern city Constantinople by Western Catholics in the 4th crusade). Saint Thomas took the interpretation of the trinity further however by conflating the hylomorphic interpretation of Aristotelian metaphysics with the essence of the holy spirit. Hence the low hanging fruit, a metaphysical interpretation, form or essence manifests as matter in the corporeal world that human beings exist within. Similarly QM deals with an ethereal essence, i.e. a Hilbert mathematical "phase" space, a physical substance, which manifests into observable, or corporeal, world forms. i.e. particles, due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Alternately, I would posit another time that matter is primarily the result of quantum spin.

Another area I also align with Dr. Smith is his call against the modern and current obsession with atomism. Physicists continue to successfully squeezed matter down to minute regions of space and time wherein a combinatorial set of properties and behaviors are demonstrated to verify the existence of particles predicted by the standard model and quantum chromo-dynamics. We have however erred by extrapolating these unique models to characterize the familiar macroscopic matter around us to the point that possibly hundreds or countably infinite fantasmical M theories (including string theories) have been fabricated to attempt an unverifiable unification of forces and an inexplicable misunderstanding of recent discoveries in dark matter and dark energy. I ventilate below on how my interpretation of this error differs from that of Dr. Smith below. Verily, Dr. Smith further describes interpretations of decoherence to describe how matter communicates causal changes in state to observers in an interpretation similar to Heisenburg and Shroedinger, I build on this understanding later.

As did Saint Augustine and Thomas, Wolfgang Smith continues to differentiate an essence that manifests the universe as an arrow of time orthogonal to the will of humanity. To simplify the concept Smith envisions creation of the universe as a point with concentric circles propagating various temporal states of the spatial universe, that is the spatial dimensions have been collapsed to a circle, this occurs on a horizontal plan. Smith further posits that the souls of humanity can alter each circle of the universe with free will, or agency, in the direction vertical to the plane. These free will acts have a causative effect of future actions. Wolfgang Smith's postulates resonate with other contemporary scholars as well. In particular the conjecture of Stuart Kauffman and Lee Smolin elucidate an alternative to Smith's position using complexity and emergent behavior as a postulate for the arrow of time and the structure of life and the universe. Kauffman in particular believes that a guiding force must exist to define an order in the universe. To prove by contradiction, Kauffman considers the overwhelming combinatorics of carbon based chains and the minimum time interval for random mutations of DNA within the finite age of the universe to prove that random evolution cannot possibly be that basis of life on earth. Kauffman's analysis insists that there must be an as yet unforeseen directive on nature that caused a more selective evolution of the cosmos and life on earth. At this point there is yet no reason, if in fact reason is reliable tool, to rule out the divine guidance of God.

I do take differences with Wolfgang Smith in several aspects of his thesis however. First I do not agree with his absolute dichotomy of the corporeal from the physical. To this extent Smith has merely abstracted the same duality error that he criticized of Descartes. From my understanding of Smith's thesis, the corporeal is observable, id est "Cave of Images" in an Platonic sense whereas the physical world is the idealized objective, timeless, shapeless substance, a "quantum substance", that exists in the universe beyond the observable corporeal boundaries, such as the Holy Spirit in the sense conveyed by Saint Thomas. This model is somewhat flawed since we are able to observe the dance of quantum mechanical phenomenon that is not decohered. A Fermi pressure of occupied quantum states upholds the structures in the universe which to the greatest part coherently intertwine with nary an observation to human senses or instruments other than an efferent glow of a boundary due to decoherence at the boundary of these forms. Fermi pressure is fundamental to the pervasive pressure of a dark matter in galactic regions and dark energy hitherto in the regions between intergalactic clusters. Again the assumption of an efferent classical "decohered" world of our senses is what is observed as an outline of the the extents of the vastly greater coherent universe. Hence humanity can observer the temporal and spatial extents, somewhat of a thinly veiled glow, of the a coherent quantum substance. Unfortunately our understanding of the structure of the universe has been confined to the contrivance of using high energy accelerators to partition and squeeze this substance into into regions with regularly behaving decoherence behaviors we characterize as fundamental "particles".

Another difference with my understanding is Dr. Smith's resignation of mathematics to be a quantitative tool rather than a tool for qualitative categorization. Quantitatively mathematics has an arithmetical limit in describing nature, qualitative categorization however provides a consistent tool for amplifying a human understanding of nature when used within understood limits or constraints. Certainly the study of the work of Bertrand Russell, Kurt Godel and later computer language theorists would argue against the completeness of quantitative arithmetic, computational and functional mapping. Kurt Godel in particular proved by contradiction that consistency of axioms and completeness, provability of all statements, in a logical arithmentic cannot coexist. Other than logic such dual paradoxes of contradiction exist in the mapping of functional categories, Brouwer's Fixed Point Theorem, and Turing's algorithm Halting problem.