Review of Interdiscipline Synthesis Cosmology


Introduction

Suppose you could:
describe spirit creatures using physics;
resolve the dispute between evolutionists and creationists;
introduce a revolutionary new natural philosophy;
explain numerous previously unexplained natural phenomena;
investigate the nature of the unseen realms of existence; and
fully define the Grand Unified Field Theory.

These possibilities will be allowed, someday, because the potential
for human accomplishment is boundless.

Imagine a religious leader who uses empirical physics to
describe the substance of spirit creatures, or a professional
scientist explaining supernatural events in a quantitative manner,
complete with repeatable experiments. Then consider the possibility
that the debate between evolutionists and creationists will be
rendered moot by the coming discovery of a subatomic particle whose
proven existence implies that non-physical entities do exist, for
they are simply aliens residing in alternate-dimensional spacetimes,
and that the deity-like alien we call God actually used evolution as
his means of creation.

"Impossible! Unthinkable! Outrageous!" many will say.
Yet, these and many related prospects, which seem the most ludicrous
and contradictory of suggestions today, are not only possible, but
are, in fact, inevitable.

It is becoming increasingly clear to seekers of truth that both
the scientific and spiritual leaders of the day are espousing
incomplete descriptions of reality. Far too many of those who
profess to know most of what must be known about something are
guilty of picking and choosing arbitrarily what are acceptable
or unacceptable notions in their discipline, which results in
conclusions, hypotheses, theories, philosophies, etc., based on
personal preferences rather than detached scholarship, including
expositions that cite physical evidence, pure mathematics, science
and technology, contemporary philosophy, metaphysical and psychic
phenomena, or ancient religious texts. Consequently, we genuine
seekers of truth are forced to go from one source to another in
search of the combination of ideas that results in a synthesis that
represents our own personal view of reality, which is then,
necessarily, an individual thing. But a single source for all of the
information we need is had only at the expense of brevity, such as
all the books in the public library, or all the web sites that can be
accessed on the Internet.

Since there is such an overwhelming amount of information in
each of the disciplines that people engage in, then how can normal
people absorb enough of all that is out there to enable one to devise
a complete understanding of reality that results from considering all
of human knowledge?

Fortunately, there is a philosophical movement that promises to
solve this dilemma; one which provides the individual with the
freedom to sculpt their own version of reality, yet is, essentially,
based on all of the information in the world. This natural
philosophy, whose main principle is interdiscipline synthesis, also
promises to produce the most correct view of the universe at-large,
which view, for lack of a more concise term, can be
called "Interdiscipline Synthesis Cosmology", or "ISC".


Defining ISC

The prefix "inter" can mean "mutual," in the sense of viewing
two or more things equally, while the word "discipline" can mean "a
branch of knowledge," so that the term "interdiscipline" can be
interpreted to be "the viewing of two or more bodies of knowledge
equally", which is a general definition, as opposed to that for the
more specific "interdisciplinary," which means "of, relating to, or
involving two or more academic disciplines," and is reserved for use
in University settings. Here, though, we choose to define the
title "Interdiscipline" to be "the act of considering equally more
than one body of knowledge at a time," or simply "multiple bodies of
knowledge."

The term "synthesis" can mean "the combining of separate elements to
form a coherent whole," or "the complex whole so formed," and implies
the mixing of different types of elements. Here, we define the
title "Synthesis" to be "the single though complex whole formed by
combining separate fundamental elements," or, more compactly, "the
combination of."

The term "cosmology" can mean "an explanation of the universe,"
and we shall take the title "Cosmology" to be the same, and imply
that the explanation must provide for a presentation of some kind of
physical model.

Altogether, therefore, the term "Interdiscipline Synthesis
Cosmology", or ISC, can be taken to mean "the concept of the
universe obtained from combining bodies of knowledge from several
human intellectual endeavors." That is, the term is self-explanatory.
ISC denotes a description of the universe obtained by synthesizing
data from different disciplines.

Because such a view depends on a number of diverse areas of
investigation, then it is properly considered a natural philosophy,
as opposed to a scientific theory, religious doctrine, secular
philosophy, …, although it will necessarily include many theories,
doctrines, and other philosophies. Thus, the complete ISC purports
to summarize much of human knowledge, with the stated goal of
determining the most comprehensive and accurate description of the
universe. Consequently, ISC must include all scientific concepts and
scenarios relating to cosmology, numerous religious notions, many
metaphysical concepts, and so on, and can leave no pertinant precepts
out of the whole, even if ideas within one discipline are in conflict
with ideas in another.

This is done by requiring that the statements comprising the elements
that make up the whole of ISC are chosen as empiricisms from each
discipline, determined by consensus among scholars in each
discipline. The first criteria, therefore, is that a given statement
of fact is considered empirical in any discipline within which it is
largely held a fundamental concept. For instance, in most Christian
religions, the statement "murder is bad" would be viewed as an
empirical statement. Likewise, in most scientific circles, the
statement "gravity is one of the fundamental forces of nature" would
also be considered an empiricism. The reader can, no doubt, imagine a
host of other examples, from these or other disciplines.

Empiricisms from all disciplines can then be compared to each
other, and those which are in conflict are separated, though not
disregarded, and distinguished as the set of all Contradictions.
What is left over after all these Contradictions are removed becomes
the basic collection of empirical statements that form the Core of
ISC. With that, some method can be used to solve conflicts among
the Contradictions, so that the number of statements in the Core can
be maximized.

The result of this writer's efforts in such respects is the
conclusion that the arts are the natural synthesis of physics and
spirituality. There is something all-inclusive about our artist's
ability to express themselves; to imagine complicated subjects; to
create new things, and to tap into those metaphysical aspects of our
humanity that cannot currently be explained by even the most advanced
of scientific theories, and which theologians are still struggling to
fully comprehend.

The arts can thus be viewed as a key to understanding how we may
synthesize all of the seemingly contrary information in the set of
Contradictions, such as the huge differences between evolutionists
and creationists. And it is the philosophy behind ISC that provides
the format which produces a synthesis of physics, spirituality, the
arts, and other disciplines.

Ideally, given involvement by honest and open-minded contributors,
and allowing for a sufficient timeframe, it is foreseeable that ISC
can be used to establish a "Theory of Existence", or ISCTE; a theory
capable of describing all of nature in physical and theological
terms, as well as other aspects of reality. The holy grail of
physics, the Grand Unified Field Theory, would have to be covered in
such a theory, as would numerous other natural philosophies,
religious notions, and the like.


ISC and Scientific Fact

"But physics already involves in-depth explanations of reality,"
a scientist may interject, "because it is based primarily on
experimental evidence and actual, real-world observations of natural
phenomena, while spirituality and the theologies of the world are
based on mysticism and superstition, and are not provable."

Yet, while such assertions may be considered empirical statements in
many scientific fields, this particular observation is unqualified,
or non-empirical, because much of what passes for truth in physics is
really someone's interpretation of an experimental result, or the
experiment is established according to initial assumptions that boil
down to the experimenter's arbitrary choice of conditions, or a
common perception among researchers is founded on some historical
precedent, rather than impartial investigation.

In other words, there are many statements in science that do not
qualify as genuine empiricisms, since some doubt or question about
the particulars exists, or a statement is viewed as true even when
there is no experimental evidence to prove it, or the statement has
been handed down by some figure of high regard, so that everyone
feels compelled to agree with it from then on.

It all reduces to a matter of consensus, of course. Yet, in many
cases, the consensus is that whatever some person says about data
from an experiment - not what the experiment reveals in and of
itself - is held as the empiricism, and touted as "scientific
fact", regardless of the so-called "scientific method".

"But that is how it has always been done," another will say.
Well, yes. But maybe that is actually the problem.

What we humans need to break away from the past and develop new
concepts about our existence is no less than the next intellectual
step up in our development as sentient creatures; a method of finding
the most truthful view of our overall reality, unhindered by any one
individual's "interpretation" of the data - for, without such a
leap forward in our understanding of existence, we are all little
more than a many-minded collective; groping as if blind in the midst
of a terrible data maelstrom.


The Potential of ISC

ISC promises to give us that method, which will then gives us valid
ISC theories. Within an ISC Theory of Existence, for instance, no
fundamental information set should be ignored, so that the ISCTE
provides us with the ability to describe anything that can be
detected by our senses, anything detectable with instrumentation, and
anything else we may conceptualize, real or imaginary, having
something to do with our existence.

There is also the possible benefit that other ISC theories can
be devised which offer ways out of a rather large number of
intellectual quagmires, since such theories, theoretically, would be
capable of giving truth seekers the tools needed to solve otherwise
unsolvable problems. Suppose that physicists will be given the means
to delve into all of the unseen places in both the microcosm and the
macrocosm that they presently cannot access. What, indeed, may exist
within the smallest known distance, or beyond the farthest detectable
object from Earth? And think of what wonders theologians could
contemplate should they be given a reputable means by which they may
extrapolate upon the nature of spirit energies, the substance of
alternate-dimensional beings, the actual form of a deity, and the
ultimate vision of heaven.

Have no doubt about it. ISC offers to us an entirely new
intellectual plateau.