What is the first assumption behind the Creative Pulse theory? Why did the Creator want to discover a mathematical model of the Interruption Phenomenon? Why do scientists assume that the constructs of a mathematical model reflect the nature of reality if there is a good fit between the empirical and the theoretical? When are the constructs challenged despite a good fit? Why did Copernicus challenge Ptolemy's constructs? And how did this lead the global population to embrace a heliocentric planetary system and the force of gravity as features of reality? Why are the constructs behind the Creative Pulse becoming more real with time? Is it possible to challenge the CP's constructs - despite experiential validation? Why is it still important to explore the implications of the CP? Article Summary
Let us explore the underlying assumptions behind the Creative Pulse, an enigmatic mathematical mechanism. As we will see the journey has entailed a constant bouncing back and forth between the empirical and theoretical to extract subtlety, refinement, and validation. First came the empirical – the Interruption Phenomenon, where the Duration of the Interruption was disproportionate to its Impact upon the Project (This seemingly insignificant experience was of similar consequence to Newton’s falling apple.)
The Phenomenon was a regular occurrence. Phone calls would make my Body (crystalline connective tissue?) mad, as if I were being jolted from a trance, or perhaps woken from a sound sleep. This creative trance occurred every day – over and over and over again. Each day I would reach this magical state. Interruptions were the bane of my existence. Felt as if I was being wrenched from a state of inspiration – painfully drawing myself out of this otherworldly state to answer the phone or go to work. Aurgh! In consequence was somewhat dazed or abrupt when answering the phone. The Caller would regularly ask: ”Did I wake you up from a nap?” – presumably because I sounded so groggy. An odd phenomenon. The question: Why is this one minute interruption so disturbing?
Wanted to discover a mathematical model that reflected this ubiquitous occurrence, in order to determine the magnitude of the impact and the underlying nature of the experience. How to go about this? Needed an equation or a picture that would somehow mimic the experience – by fulfilling certain preset requirements. This would put some kind of natural boundaries upon this rough external experience.
The process was simple. Propose a model. Check out how well it fulfills the requirements. If the fit is good enough – If the model mimics the experiential data with great enough precision then the assumption is that that the model actually defines the experience – the constructs underlying the model revealing the nature of f.
First Assumption: If I could find a mathematical model that would roughly mimic the Interruption Experience, then its underlying constructs would reveal the nature of this reality. This logical chain is not in any way mystical, odd or mysterious. This is an inherent feature of a mathematical solution. This is the scientific assumption.
For example, Newton looked at the data which Galileo et al had accumulated – developed his law of gravity to mimic it. Because there was a perfect fit, the constructs that support the formula were imparted with reality. The most mystical and controversial of these was the force of gravity itself. Why do two masses somehow attract each other from a distance? And why is this attractive force inversely proportional to the square of their distance from each other? It was several centuries before Einstein's theories resolved the question. Because of their superior fit with the experimental data Einstein’s constructs replaced Newton’s as defining the nature of Reality. (Check out Occult Gravity for more) This meant that all the magical bending of the space-time continuum became real – because this was a feature of the constructs employed to accurately define the empirical data.
'If the theoretical mimics the empirical accurately enough, then its constructs define reality' is a common scientific assumption. However this is just an assumption, not a logical necessity. If the constructs accurately reflect experience, this is a further validatation of their veracity. However if the constructs violate our notion of reality and have no experiential reality, then they might be challenged or ignored. In some notable instances the challenge of the underlying constructs, not the data/model correlation, provided an impetus for change and discovery.
For instance Ptolemy’s mathematical model based in a geocentric system accurately reflected the experimental data – the planetary positions. This provided the scientific community, as well as the general public, with the notion that the earth was the center of the universe with the planets doing odd little dances - epicycles and such – on their way around the Earth. Because the math was such a perfect predictor of the empirical the constructs were assumed true. Copernicus didn’t believe the constructs to be true. He believed that there was another description of reality that made more sense. (For more check out Copernicus and Elegant Simplicity.) This was his underlying motivation for developing the theory that the Earth circled the Sun, instead of vice versa.
However, it wasn’t until Kepler’s discoveries, about a century later, that Copernicus’ insights were refined and confirmed absolutely. The solar system theory provided an even better fit to the increasingly precise data regarding planetary position than the preceding Ptolemaic system. Accordingly the constructs underlying the Copernican formulations became reality – as they reflected how reality operates.
This formulation led to Newton’s synthesis of heaven and earth – with their common matter linked via the force of gravity. The accuracy of experimental correspondence was so great that the mysterious gravitational force became real.
However, sometimes the data fit is not enough to establish the reality of the underlying constructs of the theory. Sometimes it takes experiential confirmation, as well, to validate the theoretical constructs. The force of gravity has this experiential component, which further confirms its reality. Although Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, with its space-time continuum construct, provided even a better fit to the data, his almost mystical constructs haven’t changed our perception of reality. As most of us don’t regularly approach the speed of light, we live in a Newtonian universe, the clearly delineated world of matter and energy, space and time. Further we experience the force of gravity regularly and continuously on a daily level. It even pulls my old face down – producing jowls and such – muddying my youthful features – as the gravity sags my posture and skin. Gravity is real. Although it took Einstein to tell us how gravity works, the magical constructs behind Newton’s Math have become real.
So let us refine the scientific assumption about the nature of reality to bring it in line with these latest examples.
For similar reasons the constructs behind the Creative Pulse have assumed a growing connection to the nature of reality. First, the fit between the Interruption Phenomenon (the Empirical) and the Creative Pulse (the Theoretical) is excellent; 2nd, the model's extensions make sense; 3rd, there is also a daily experiential confirmation of the results. Due to these interlocking affirmations of the theory, the underlying constructs assumed a type of reality, in the sense that they defined the nature of reality, how she operates.
Experiential confirmation is an important component in the verification of the theoretical. The general empirical data for the CP Theory, although soft, has been growing almost exponentially – ever since the fateful Zen questions (Check out Zen men for more.) New modalities come under its sway with a casual glance here and there. (Newton must have experienced something similar when he connected Heaven and Earth with his powerful formula for gravity.) There are so many correspondences it is mind-boggling. (Check out Creative Pulse Applications.) This is certainly an important validation of the theory.< h4>Daily personal experiential confirmation further affirms CP Reality
However, the personal preceded the general. The empirical evidence began with my own experiences. For decades I have pursued the same identical daily routine: Exercise in the morning (Tai Chi, the latest) – followed by a Creative Project in the afternoon. Later as Children Time faded Music was added to the routine, the mix. In each of these unique modalities I would enter a sleep-like trance, where Interruptions were infuriating. My simple desire was to encompass this ubiquitous, albeit rough, experience with a mathematical model. (Note that these Instances didn’t generate any numbers – hard to quantify feelings.) Although it was just an experience that I was attempting to model, it was a daily experience – a 3X daily experience that went on for decades. Can’t speak for others – but knew what I was going through – what I wanted to describe mathematically. The Creative Pulse model was such a perfect fit for this relatively simple experience that I came to hold the constructs that had allowed its unfolding to also be real – in the sense of defining the nature of reality. Further, over the years from the discovery of the CP to the understanding the extended implications of this insight the model was affirmed in an increasing number of contexts. Of course the growing number of these general and personal affirmations increased the presumed reality of the constructs.
Just as Copernicus doubted Ptolemy’s constructs even though they fit reality, someone, anyone, can doubt the unusual, counterintuitive constructs behind the Creative Pulse even though they accurately reflect reality. Indeed it is conceivable, though not probable, that some scientist could discover material mechanisms that produce the same result as these mathematical mechanisms. However until such time, this is what we have.
Further even if some material causes exist, the mathematical constructs behind the experience are the same. Even if Ptolemy’s construct was flawed, he was able to predict planetary position as accurately as necessary. Accordingly it is important to examine the implications and underlying constructs of these mathematical models due to the experiential fit.
Below is a table which shows some theoretical constructs, their validations and their perceived reality.
Everyone considers the force of Gravity to be Real, as it has been confirmed experimentally, experienced continuously, and extended into the sky as well as the earth. Alternately the space-time continuum is considered less real, as we never experience its effects. Then certain segments of the population question the reality of Evolution due to its lack of an experiential confirmation combined with its violation of their perception of reality. And finally, the constructs of the Creative Pulse have aquired personal reality due to their fit with the Empirical, as well as the multiple extensions into diverse realms, combined with the experiential confirmation that occurs daily.
What were these constructs and where did they extend to?