Planet Earth, The Theory of Recurrence, commonsensible.org
Planet Earth, The Theory of Recurrence, commonsensible.org

 The Theory of Recurrence

An observation about reality, leading to truth...

 

So, I've been working on this probably the most out of everything, thinking about it day and night for over 2 decades. It's so hard to put it into words that a planned short article has probably turned into a book. However, if I can't do it simply, then it's nonsense, so, well, here is a go at a simple version. You will need a little philosophical and scientific knowledge to understand this!

 

Natural laws, scientific laws or universal constants are things that always happen.

This is quite rare. The law of gravity is an example of a natural law. Mathematics and its relations, another. Natural laws are seemingly the only things we can say with any certainty, and so they are critically important. Also known as analytical truths.

However, there are more natural laws or truths than have hitherto been formalised and publicised. 

This is because the first natural law or truth has been missed, and it is the most important one. We have therefore been blindsided, and we must re-educate ourselves as to this first natural law and its implications.

 

This is the law of recurrence (I am calling it a theory, until it can be verified, but I believe it is a law and so will follow that terminology here, however, it also has many related parts, so theory is probably a better term). This law is that things repeat or, rather, recur. It doesn't have to be an exact repeat to be a repeat, that's why it is better to say recur and why reoccur isn't the right term either.

This is what is at the base of natural laws, they recur. 

This is also what is at the base of truth, things that recur. It's a much more effective understanding of what is truth and it gets over previous blocks towards its discovery.

It is what is at the base of scientific enquiry, what is true will recur; so I can repeat your experiment which gave you a result and get the same result and say that your results are true.

It is a truer definition of truth; that which recurs.

 

This is also because if you get stuck on the detail, you will miss the bigger picture. I might use a different experiment but get a similar, or the same, result. Again, why recur is the preferred term.

We have become too used to "black and whiting" or categorising reality in detail. It causes it's own problems, as it focuses on what is different and so is short sighted. Like looking at an elephant with a microscope, I will miss the elephant. Our limited working memory and inablity to hold the whole picture in our minds is also a problem here.

Another example is, the law of gravity always happens, but it looks different in different circumstances, even though the law is still true. On Earth is looks like what goes up, must come down, but in "empty" space, what goes up, keeps going up. Again, this is why recur is a better term, it is a looser understanding of always and allows for the absolute nature of natural laws, even when these are prima facie different at times. 

Taking things down to their fundamentals is very important too, it helps to get past the detail which confuses.

 

Continues after advert...

 

 

So, for example, if I close my eyes and doubt everything, and walk forward into a wall that exists in front of me, after walking forward repeatedly, I would have to surmise the wall is there, even if I doubt it. Another person, who, because of another unrecognised law, that of subjectivity, will have a different prespective of what is in front of him (maybe He/She will have different sensations of the wall when they touch it), the wall as a physical block (its fundamental nature)  will still recur for them, even if the detail is different. Again, why recur is the right term. (Also why taking things down to their fundamentals is also key.)

 

Now, this shows us another mistake. Yes, I think therefore I am, but what causes this thinking and the tinking itself  is reliant on the law of recurrence. If I thought only once, then perhaps I can doubt this too, but it is the repeated or recurrent thought that shows me I am thinking. Therefore, thinking is not the first thing I can say with any certainty; it's not cogito ergo sum. Rather, that there is something recurring, that is what I can say with certainty. Cogito ergo sum me omnia et recurrent. In the first instance, it is thought, but it spills over into more than that. It also means that there is no need to split mind from body, that this is incorrect, as what recurs for my mind, recurs for my body too, or it is not true or at least not real in a physical sense. The more it recurs, the truer it is. I appreciate this will jar with your conditioning. It gets worse, as things can be true sometimes, true always and be true and false at the same time etc., and still fit with the law of recurrence and therefore be true. However, this is a clearer vision of reality and is not blindsided as we have been thus far. After the initial confusion, once you take the whole theory on board, it's a bit like a moment of enlightenment, and you will see clearer than ever.

 

Once I have identified that that which recurs is the first thing I can truly know, I can start to see how all ecompassing this law is. Now, when I open my eyes and start to explore reality, I can be sure that what is true and real is that which recurs. Like the wall as a small example.

Like maths, 1+1 always = 2, it recurs. Even if I changed it, to say, 1+1=11 or whatever 'silly' example you might give, I still have something, with something, gives me something. Again why recurs is the right term and why not focusing on the detail (contrary to almost all enquiry thus far) is very important. This will be true, across subjective differences, so "ning logo ning, tao kub song" is the same as "one plus one, equals two," if you translate it or if you generalise it, as what we are really saying is something plus something is something, and this is both as true in Thailand as it is in England.

 

It defeats questions of subjectivity, since what is recurrent for many subjectives, can therefore be said to be objective and true, even if they differ on the detail. (Please read the theory of multi-subjectivity, here, for more on this.)

 

To summarise, what is true is that which recurs. Recurs is the right term as it gets over any differences. This helps us see how far reaching the law of recurrence is. Science and truth are hinged on the law of recurrence. Western philosophy went down a dead end with Descartes and the Eastern ideas on duality (or rather monality) are closer to the truth.

 

Now, this is where things get wierd and interesting. The law is obedient to itself. The law of recurrence, also recurs. It is why I can use the analogy of the elephant above, or the example of the wall. Proverbs, sayings, idioms, metaphors, and so on, they all work, because of the law of recurrance. Now, in a random and unconnected (except materially) universe; this shouldn't be so, it shows a non-material connection. But it is so. I can look at a child on a swing, or an apple falling from a tree and see the laws of inertia, kinetic energy or gravity (etc.). Think fractals, think geometry, think of anything. The little is the big. This is all only because of the law of recurrence. It also means that the universe seems connected in a hitherto unidentified way. It should be peculiar that by looking at a part, I can figure out something about the whole. It shows that reality is more like an echo chamber. And that the law of recurrence is supreme. It could also be because it's all designed.

 

There's more to this, but I hope this is a start that people can make sense of. Now think about it, try to see what I have seen, don't get stuck on the detail or on what you disagree with, just look at the key idea, what is true recurs and that this law is incredibly wide spread. Now go enquire, through those goggles...

 

Andrew

 

Liking, following and sharing is caring :) (mobile users scoll down...)

 

Comments

Please enter the code
* Required fields
  • Andrew (Wednesday, November 09 16 05:04 am EST)

    Hi Warren, it's not complete yet, there's reams of pages to come on this so I can't engage in a discussion yet, but I can say that in your personal world of dreams or fears, it indicates something of significance to you. It's a soft form of truth. And yes, eventually you would pull these things into your reality at some point but their form could still be unreal. Perception is indeed key, but there IS an outer perception that is closer to objective the further from the personal you go...reality is indeed simple and comprehensible, it is possible to choose what recurs but that doesn't make you right, only what really recurs will be true in reality and this has to be more than personal; based on others.

  • warren (Monday, October 31 16 12:28 am EDT)

    So does a recurring dream or a recurring fear of something that may or may not become a reality, as in actually happening, make these a reality. Isn't a reality possible for one person and not another depending on individual thoughts, perceived occurrences or actual events that have occurred only to that individual. I guess reality is not universal to all people rather more a perception. I conclude, but am happy to be persuaded otherwise, that life is much simpler than we like to submit to. It's a possible to choose your perspective viewpoint call it what you may and as a result choose your reality. If you believe enough recurrence will be right there in the mix.

Print Print | Sitemap
© A P M Yiallouros (commonsensible.org) - 1&1 MyWebsite // This website uses Google's Adsense and Analytics etc and so uses cookies. If you do not consent to the use of cookies, please close the browser, for more detail please see our terms, privacy and cookie policies in the "Our Team" tab.