Ponder the Wonders, Part I
Abstract Imagination. Art, Science, or Insight into Psuedo-Reality?
Vortrek.Grafix does a lot of digital painting, and likes to explore a variety of styles. One such style is sometimes referred to as "alternative" or "abstract", but I prefer to think of it as "creating harmony within disorder". This is not a particularly mainstream approach to producing media, and that is why the idea finds itself on this lens today. One might ask if representing something unknown in an abstract format is an intangible undertaking? Sure, perhaps sometimes. On the other hand, such undertakings may also give rise to new and insightful perspectives in our ways of thinking. In my view, all new knowledge was once disorderly, until a visionary with affinity for hypotheticals solved the unknowns. Hence, "abstract imagination rules!", and I gladly invite readers to comment on this position (*ahem* providing, of course, the reply is conducive to productive dialogue). Thank you for dropping in. Please read on...
If you like the Art examples in this lens, please feel free to drop by our site:
The Rennaissance - Science and Creative Arts
Let me start by making reference to the Renaissance period, during which iconic master craftsmen emerged such as Da Vinci, Raphael, and Michaelangelo. In their day, artists and scientists were in many ways synonymous, as both disciplines entailed an astute sense of insight. Not only were such men superbly gifted in the creative arts, they were also architects, inventors, and explorers of natural phenomena. Much of the knowledge uncovered in their time was derived empirically. Often this originated from little more than concoctions of the imagination. For example, Da Vinci's extraordinary artistic skills were invaluable in modeling, and bringing to fruition, many of his revolutionary inventions. Da Vinci's illustrated notebooks exist to this day, and many of his illustrated visions, however abstract in his day, are still being followed up on today.
Thus, new discoveries are often the product of an abstract mindset daring to broach the frontiers of conceptually uncharted territory. I put it to you that all new ideas were initially abstract, and as such were irrelevant to whatever ideas society had adapted to up to that point. By definition then, abstract thinkers are revolutionaries in the eyes of their contemporaries and may be feared as agents of change. Regardless if change is good or bad for society, simply put, it is inevitable. One would be hard pressed to identify any idea today which was not intangible before it was popularly adopted. History's milestone inventions were all preceded by visionaries converting intangibles into reality. Ultimately, abstract thinking defines the path of social evolution.
"What If?" Hypothetical Modeling
Plausible enough so far, but let me take it a step further. Concievably, if enough time is invested in trial and error, then anything which can be imagined can also be made tangible. I say "concievably" because the laws of physics impose constraints making this is an ideal humanity can only hope to approach, but never reach. The time and resources humanity would require to master all things unknown would have to be infinite. Unfortunately for us, "infinity" is an abstract notion regarded by science as impossible for humanity to exploit. In other words, humanity's inability to exploit infinity, confines its quest to master all things unknown to finite parameters.
But, is inifinity truly endlessly vast, and can no amount of collective human intelect truly hope to embrace its meaning? Well, in an abstract context these questions are debatable, so here's where it gets fun to play around with hypotheticals. As an amateur philosopher, prone to very loose associations, allow me to hypothesize upon an alternate view of infinity. This author believes pieces of the infinity puzzle can be modeled after analogous examples which are commonplace in our daily lives. Ever try facing two mirrors across from each other? The result is an endless exchange of their respective reflections, limited only by our finite ability to see the result in its entirety. Another example would be dividing say 10 by 3, the result of which is an "infinitely" repeating number after the decimal point. Here again, the limitation is only in our ability to continue recording the repeating numbers. Do these examples have anything in common? I believe so. Both instances involve interaction of distinct (or "finite") components to create an infinite reaction. This suggests infinity, or "the known universe" if you will, may not be as conceptually an omnipotent nut to crack as theory assumes. Observation of analogous cases, validates the premise that the universe could consist of finite components interacting to produce an infinite effect. If that is correct, and the universe is indeed divisible into distinctly finite components, then should our conception of infinity not be modeled accordingly?
OK, rather hypothetical, but there are observations to support the theory. If valid, such a theory might potentially lay some groundwork for developing a model of infinity's component(s). The point is, all abstract ideas are speculative, but they do provide a tentative path for discovery. If a hypothesis is confirmed, "viola!" we have new knowledge. If partially confirmed, we have something to build upon. Even if unconfirmed, some value is still derived because discarding a plausible theory shortens the list of feasible research approaches on the subjcet from that point onward. In any case, we all know dreamers who have their head in the clouds all day long. Odds are, that dreamer is a little different from their immediate community. That's OK. Leave the guy be. In fact, encourage him to continue delving into the abstract realm. One never knows if that dreamer might be concieving the next sweeping sociological phenomenon. And hence my mantra "He who ponders, gives rise to wonders".
Video: Vortrek Grafix on Youtube - A demo on how to use persinalize products with templates
Might "infinity" result from the interaction of finite entities?
No human brain can conceive of infinity in a literal context, and must simplify the concept in abstract terms in order to ponder its significance. Where physics is incomplete there is room for philosophy and even science-fiction if you will. Given this premise, is it not conceivable then that infinity is in fact divisible into distinct finite entities?
Example 1: two mirrors facing each other reciprocate each others reflections infinitely.
Example 2: 10 divided by 3 results in 3 followed an infinitely trailing decimal of .33333... (ad infinitum)
Could infinity (as we "see" our universe) be a reaction between two or more finite entities?
One of my all time favorite guitarists. In the same league as Walsh and Hendrix.
If you're on the run a lot, these are quick, appetizing, and healthy. I rather like 'em.
Not for everyone, but if you liked reading my lens: "Imagination, is it Art, Science or Psuedo-Reality?", then this might strike your fancy too. For those who can appreciate a genius' insights into our known universe, this little book is worth a gander.