Scientific Nature’s Place/Source of Action
Sources and causes of “natural flaw,” in action and application
Second Edition. January 10th, 2024.
Most of us adults have had some basic education in our youth concerning nature’s scientific operations and functions.
The often over-simplified ways of functioning are/were sometimes expressed in terse and easily remembered words. Often, these seemingly — but not truly — perfect and simplistic “bogus but telling” versions can be easily conveyed, or couched, in crisp and overly straight equations.
Yet in our educations there is typically (to my knowledge) no discussion of where these natural ways and functions have their basis or roots. To my realizations many years ago, as a scientist looking over my personal history of education with a more skeptical approach, I discovered a miscue that incorrectly implied a “third-party mysterious field effect” somehow pulled and/or pushed on everything — such that (incorrectly) all things would fit the short words and equations.
At this important moment of considering links between causes and effects, if the “field effect” idea were not challenged as to source of actions, then the resulting feel is that of some outside container creator, or zone, that enfolds the universe, somehow “projecting” those rules into all the space of the universe.
This default notion I disagree with.
I propose that a better postulate is that each unique instance of “molecules” — which is the nature of the ways atoms almost exclusively go in pairs, triads, or larger groups — are the actors and conditioners upon each occurrence of molecular action, and upon other occurrences nearby and in sequence of differing molecules, rather than being acted upon by field mysterious rules.
Thus, each individual copy of each molecule, in our notions and ideas, would have many properties more than strictly combined atomic numbers and atomic masses, and other basics we might have been educated concerning. Instead, each molecule would in my theory possess a long list of properties: and possess alongside uniqueness properties, interaction properties by type of molecule, with each occurrence featuring exact near identical “rules of nature” about it, or so very amazingly similar to an astronomical degree of exactness, possibly. That’s separating what makes a molecule unique from what makes each — of same type — so very similar, into two differing categories for consideration.
This idea I like better. Each reader then might consider that the molecules of his or her body are the “virtual bosses, and the effected also” of all these academic rules of nature, and these bodily molecules are the “action points and causal interactors” throughout an individual person’s body. Thus, each of us can live our lives knowing that our bodies are the sources of such beautiful and important nature’s rules, and we are fully involved in being (our part) of nature itself, rather than being driven by it.
No several chapters of a textbook and no single set of equations could ever quite match the subtlety and nuance of the “real nature” (of incredibly more complexity in nature), and thus we can take comfort that nature, defies overly simple explanations.
